Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Domestic Violence

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Jeff Rooker: In raising the issue of domestic violence, I want to highlight four areas of special concern. They are the effect of domestic violence on children; the operation of prosecution policy, as instanced by the under-prosecution of domestic violence because of the ease with which women can withdraw complaints; the need for a corporate approach by local authorities at the most senior level; and work to tackle the root causes of domestic violence, which is largely perpetrated by men.
Those who suffer domestic violence are not criminals. Whatever they may feel or be told, it is not their fault. Although 90 per cent. of victims are women, in my view it is not a womens issue, to be ghettoised by male policy makers or national or local elected representatives. However, it takes men to raise the issue, to force other men in senior positions to sit up and take notice of that crucial area of social policy.
I will not cite many statistics, but certainly domestic violence knows no social frontiers of class, wealth or ethnicity. During last autumn's long recess, I spent several hours with one domestic violence forum in Birmingham. It is based on one of the current police divisions, although that is to change, and co-ordinated by officers from the city council chief executive's department.
I spent four hours with that 20-strong group, all of whose members are women. They included representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service, Churches and the Salvation Army; solicitors, health visitors, staff from local authority housing departments and social services; and representatives of housing associations, the Children's Society and Relate. The police and probation service were represented, as were hostel staff.
During that session, which included one devastating role play of the effects of domestic violence on children, several issues were raised, but I cannot mention them all today. One was the lack of separate waiting rooms for victims and defendants in Birmingham courts. One can imagine what it must be like for a victim to take the matter that far and then find herself in the same room as the defendant.
That problem has largely been solved by the city's new Crown courts, and the magistrates courts are due to be revamped next year. I am particularly grateful for the

interest shown in that aspect by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).
Birmingham's city-wide inter-agency steering group on domestic violence—which includes citizens advice bureaux, benefits agencies and other players in the voluntary sector that I mentioned—defined domestic violence as follows:
The cycle of abuse affecting women which takes the form of habitual, repeated or random use of intimidating behaviour aimed at controlling and subjugating the individual. This can occur through physical, psychological, sexual, emotional and verbal means, which in turn causes responses such as fear, humiliation, shame and guilt, and changes in a womans behaviour. That occurs across all sections of the community regardless of culture or social-economic status and within heterosexual or lesbian relationships. The most important point to take account of is that it can kill.
There are about half a million reported incidents of domestic violence a year in this country. In Birmingham in 1993, more than 5,000 domestic violence incidents were reported to the police, leading to almost 1,000 arrests. In north Birmingham's D police division, which includes most of my constituency, there were just over 1,200 reported incidents. Of seven murders in Birmingham in 1993, five were attributable to domestic violence. This year there have been more, and several serious attempts at murder, as women have attempted unsuccessfully to leave.
More and more women in recent years have been encouraged to use their rights as citizens. I shall never forget one lady who came to my surgery a couple of years ago, just after the last election, and who had been on the receiving end of violence. She belonged to a culture that does not exactly treat women equally. She said:
I have learned to speak up for myself so I can defend myself and my children, and I have found out that I can get help
She had already sought help before coming to me, but I dealt with other aspects of the case.
Information is both a power and comfort to the victims. The police do take the issue much more seriously than they did a decade ago. Some firms of solicitors specialise in this area. I pay tribute to Tyndallwoods in Birmingham, which some years ago set up a women's 24-hour legal helpline to deal with domestic violence.
Nevertheless, there remain considerable hurdles for the victims. The need for access to quick legal aid; an end to different treatment of married and cohabiting women as compared with other cases where the violence is external to the household; owner-occupiers and tenants being treated differently; the attacker being a joint owner or tenant—all these factors lead to complex and different procedures, which can be daunting.
Indeed, the latest restrictions on legal aid mean that it is almost impossible for women to pursue civil or criminal proceedings using legal aid. Most women in work will not qualify; and worse still, others will be deemed to have income by virtue of the income of their violent partners. That places the victims in an incredibly difficult position.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments with great interest, because I used to practise in the courts. I cannot quite see why there should be a difference between the


treatment of people in rented accommodation and of those who are owner-occupiers. I should be grateful for some elucidation.

Mr. Rooker: It is not possible in the time available to go down all the byways. It has to do with income and ownership. If a woman is in a hostel, there will be a difference in the rehousing of her children. It will depend on whether she has been the part owner of an owned house or a tenant of a private landlord or local authority. These factors will result in differences of treatment, which boil down to questions of future housing—and it can all be very bewildering.
Injunctions vary; if taken out under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, put through the House by our late friend Jo Richardson, then there is power of arrest. With civil injunctions, there is no power of arrest; and even getting an ouster order has to be done by means of the law on trespass.
I realise that the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, currently in another place, will deal with some of these anomalies, although some of the points that I want to raise are not dealt with in it. That is one reason for my speech this morning.
An injunction with power of arrest presents problems for the police, which are too easily resolved by not making an arrest. This is because the arresting officer has to be the person going to court with the defendant. My constituents believe that any police officer should be able to go to the court with the defendant armed with a statement from the arresting officer. More importantly, the power of arrest where there is evidence should cease to be discretionary.
It has been put to me that a major concern is the number of women sufferers of domestic violence who later withdraw their complaints. That is done for a variety of reasons. Anyone can make a mistake. But the facility to withdraw a complaint is openly abused by defendants. Intimidation from both the defendant and members of his family is frequent. The police know that, in many cases in which a complaint is withdrawn, the victim later informs the domestic violence liaison officers that she was coerced into submitting the retraction statement.
Action should therefore be taken to make it more difficult to issue a retraction statement—particularly when the offence has involved arson or the use of caustic substances; a section 18 wounding; or threats to kill where a weapon was involved. Following any offence of violence where a child was a witness, a retraction statement should not be taken from the victim.
Also, once a victim has withdrawn a complaint against a defendant—if that is allowed—no further retraction statements should ever be taken from that victim if a further complaint is made in the future. Of course, that might put people off complaining, but I shall cover that point later.
The Crown Prosecution Service should publish its policy guidelines on the prosecution of such offences; those guidelines should ensure that such cases are not withdrawn too easily. Perhaps research into this aspect should be undertaken.
Bail conditions need attention, too. Too often, those conditions are not specific enough, and the perpetrators will stand around in public places, where it is difficult to

move them on. They may wait in the street, or outside a college, shops or factory. They may stand outside the homes of the victims relatives, where the victim has to go, to harass, frighten and intimidate. Hence the need for more specific bail conditions.
Local authorities have a major role to play. I know that they come in for criticism in this House, but the fact is that they are the bodies that can perform a genuine co-ordinating role, linking their own services, the police, health authorities and GPs. This does, however, require action at the very top of local authorities, at chief officer level. This is not a matter for delegation.
Some local authorities, such as Northampton, have regular meetings of chief officers to look at the issues. Responsibility is not delegated to less senior people, and work is done in partnership with external agencies such as the Women's Aid Federation. They look on domestic violence as a crime with victims and perpetrators, not as a womens issue. That attitude is crucial.
It requires men at the top to spell out to councillors the fact that policy in this important area is not a side issue or a ghetto issue. The hostel and refuge provision in the public sector needs some attention. From what I have heard and seen, local authority hostels tend to be used as a last resort, unlike those in the voluntary sector. This, in the main, is because they are not geared up for the needs of children. That can be a nightmare.
It is estimated that some 750,000 children may be suffering long-term trauma due to exposure to domestic violence. The children are our future, and it is here where work has to undertaken in the schools to change attitudes. Children witness domestic violence, but they will still cry to their mothers that "Daddy has been taken away", and ask why he is not with them in the hostel.
The pressures upon a woman victim forced to leave home with children to seek sanctuary can be immense, especially if the children are unhappy, bewildered, away from their friends, and sent to new schools, with all the fear that that brings to young children.
The pressures of coping with several different agencies, dealing with finance, housing, education, the police, solicitors, and trying to take and collect the kids to and from school and get back into a hostel before it closes are all too much for some victims. Some take the easy way out and head back home, usually to a welcoming beating.
There are no easy answers—no one claims there are. Twenty years ago, a Select Committee on domestic violence recommended more refuge bed space: one per 10,000 population. We currently have only about 10 per cent. of that number.
I have touched very briefly upon narrow aspects where progress needs to be made. Attitudes—mainly mens attitudes—need changing to end this unacceptable behaviour. I have concentrated on the 90 per cent. of victims who are women. By definition, the other 10 per cent. are men. It is easier to change the attitudes of men if the victims are given help, and if it is known by all concerned that top people will move quickly to help victims.
As a constituency Member, I know the difficulties of getting help quickly to some of these people. As a result, some women put up with intolerable situations for too long, and murder can result.
It might be useful to hear from the Minister about the Home Office-sponsored research by Dobash et al of Cardiff university. I have been familiar with that research


only for the past couple of weeks, but I understand that its publication has been put back. It would be useful for people to see it, so that we can make a judgment whether any recommendations are positive. There may be resource implications to be looked at.
Men must be confronted and not let off the hook, and many local schemes are attempting to do that. In Birmingham, "Freshstart"—I do not know why that name was chosen, because that name has been used for another purpose—makes contact with the women partners. It pulls in the men so that they can talk, and they are confronted with what they have done. At the same time, their partners are contacted to ensure their safety, while the menfolk go through the process of chatting about what they have been up to, over an eight to 10-week period.
So far, it has proved highly successful, and does not cost a great deal. Nevertheless, it is something that has to be driven from the top. It requires chief officers to tell local authorities that such schemes are worth while, and that they want senior people involved in them. It is not a matter that should be pushed away to junior staff.
Encouragement must be given to work in the schools with young boys, particularly those who display aggressive behaviour in the playground. Some of them will role-play in the playground the domestic violence that they have seen at home. That is understandable, but it must be nipped in the bud at an early stage. They think that it is normal and acceptable behaviour. The education sector has a key role to play in changing attitudes.
In summary—I do not wish to detain the House, as these brief debates have proved extremely useful and I am keen to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak—we need better, more accessible information for women—for example, on child benefit and social security allowance documents. There should be more access to freephone 24-hour help lines, which are an extremely valuable resource. It is a comfort to know that they are available, believe me.
There should be more and better safe places in refuges, and they should be more in tune with the fact that, by and large, the woman victim will have young children. We have to think about the effect on the children in the hostels. They have to be there in certain circumstances, but it must not be a trauma for them. The trauma should be reduced to the absolute minimum, and that requires changes in the quality of hostel provision.
There should be better legal remedies. I know that a forthcoming Bill will insist on improving legal remedies. I make no complaint about that. There should be more work with children in school; more training for solicitors, health workers and the police; and a co-ordinated operation from city councils and local authorities. It is important that that is resourced over a long period.
I thank those in my constituency who help my constituents who are involved in domestic violence: health visitors, the police, the Children's Society, which makes a valuable contribution from the small base it has, and Women's Aid and the Salvation Army, whose hostels in parts of north Birmingham provide a model that the city could well follow.
I thank the volunteers who staff some of the help lines out of their own pocket, without any public resource. They give comfort and aid to women. I thank Birmingham social services department, which some years ago set up an organisation known as PAROSA, which has a 24-hour

help line for Asian women and Asian families. It has qualified staff on the other end of the telephone, where language is not a barrier and help can be provided. The victims should have the comfort of knowing that information and help is available in these circumstances.
Domestic violence is not something that they have to put up with in the quiet of their own home, suffering a battering day in day out, week in and week out, worrying about the affect that it will have on the children and making excuses for the damage, perhaps to their faces and arms. It is wholly unacceptable behaviour in our society at this part of the century. Frankly, we have to do more about it. I hope that we can send some signals this morning to those who work in the area, that the House of Commons is at least aware of the situation.

Lady Olga Maitland: I give a warm welcome to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for a most important debate. I totally endorse his definition of domestic violence. He said that domestic is a crime, not a womens issue. I regard domestic violence as a serious issue. A mugging at home is no more acceptable than a mugging in the street. The tragedy is that, for many years, domestic violence was not given the due attention it deserved, and we all know that it is no myth.
I congratulate the Government on their many initiatives in bringing help and support to a very beleaguered section of our society. Such violence is growing every year. Disturbingly, some 40 per cent. of the women murdered in 1993 were killed by their spouses or partners. But even with the many thousands of cases recorded by the police, there is evidence that it is only the tip of the iceberg. The truth is that many women are fearful of reporting their partners or spouses to the police.
Indeed, I can recall very well going out on a police patrol in Bethnal Green, during which we received an urgent call from a young teenager, to visit a home in a tenement building. He said, "Come quickly, my father is beating my mother very badly. Hurry!" The sense of urgency was quite acute. His call had a calming effect on the father, who, when we arrived, was striding around the flat, still excited, but insisting that everything was "perfectly all right".
It did not seem so to me. His wife was huddled in the kitchen, her face bloodied, black and blue. It was a terrible sight. But she did not say a word against her husband. She did not dare, for fear of reprisals. There was nothing we could do. We had to leave, and the tragedy is that she did not press charges, then or later.
I very much hope that the Governments excellent domestic awareness campaign, launched last October with a clear message, "Domestic Violence is a Crime—Don't Stand for it", will have some effect. We want to encourage them to come forward. There is no excuse for perpetrators to escape unscathed, and this campaign a complemented by a leaflet, produced in a number of languages and targeted specifically at women who may be reluctant to report domestic violence because of their immigration status. Its message is clear: nobody, whatever their nationality or immigration status, should have to fear violence or abuse of any kind.
I welcome the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on domestic violence, in which it recommended that every police division in London set up a domestic violence unit.


So far, 28 police forces have special units, and I am proud to say that one of them is run by the Epsom and Sutton division, which covers my constituency. We have two full-time domestic violence officers working flat out, but it would be a mistake to believe that they act alone. Every officer in the division is involved—all 360 of them. It is a team effort, in which they all have an input.
We also have our own very active victim support scheme—one of 375 victim support schemes across the country, which altogether are funded to the tune of more than £7 million a year. It is a valued service.
One imaginative scheme that deserves wider attention is a pilot programme in the Central region of Scotland, where panic buttons, of the sort used by thousands of elderly people, are handed out to women at risk. The scheme is only three months old and, according to the last report, only two of the nine women equipped with panic buttons have not had to press them. As soon as they do, the phone rings in the regions emergency care control unit and case details appear on the computer screen with a message to call the police immediately.
So far, it takes, on average, three minutes for the police to be at the door complete with details on whether there is a restraint order in force against the man, and the ages of the children. I am delighted to report that the scheme has been welcomed by Sutton police, who regard it as effective because women can get an immediate response. As a result, the police are beginning to install the first alarm in the home of a person who is considered to be particularly at risk.
There is pressure on the Government to fund more womens refuge centres, and that is an attractive and tempting idea. However, I am not sure from conversations that we have had with Sutton's housing department that that is the main issue. Many people apply to social services and, in turn, to the housing department for help. But the great majority—500 in our case—were given sufficient emotional support and counselling to enable them to return home with their problems resolved.
The housing department helps when it is needed. For a variety of domestic reasons, 66 households were rehoused. But of that number, only 28 families were rehoused because of breakdown resulting from a violent relationship.
The social services department gave me a word of caution. It says that some applications by women are rather dubious, in that they claim excessive domestic violence, which the department feels is somewhat exaggerated in the telling, as a means of getting greater benefits or access to alternative accommodation.
I do not want in any way to use that illustration to denigrate a serious issue. The department has noticed that the numbers of people crying out for help are increasing. It is hard to assess exactly why that is so. More relationships end in blows, and, over the last 20 years, Britain's partnerships are ending in divorce and break-ups are growing at an epidemic rate. Perhaps that has led to increased bitterness.
The hon. Member for Perry Bar rightly said that children are the real victims of domestic violence. I congratulate the Department of Health on taking a lead in co-ordinating the work of the interdepartmental group on child abuse. This is an extremely important area. Esther Rantzen's Childline

has some chilling examples of horrifying abuse. Children can be damaged for life by their experiences. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, based on reported domestic violence, some 750,000 children across the nation may be growing up in an atmosphere of fear and violence. We ignore their plight at our peril.
I agree that local authorities should co-ordinate services, and that it should be done from the top. Chief executives should have an overview, and local authorities should look carefully at their budgets and their consciences. They should cut extraneous spending in cosmetic and political areas and concentrate on the real priority of social services and particularly on children who are the victims of domestic violence. They could focus resources to give a positive benefit.
For example, they could provide skilled counselling for children, which can be very helpful. A play therapist can help a child work through what has happened so that it can face the future. Schools play an essential role in helping to identify children at risk, and that means that teachers will need training for that important task.
There is a demand for such services. A survey by NCH Action for Children, based on a poll of 108 mothers with 246 children who had all suffered domestic violence, is telling. Three out of four women questioned said that their children had seen violent incidents, and almost two thirds of the children had seen their mothers beaten. One in 10 women reported having been raped in front of her children.
All claimed that their children were aware of violence, and almost three in 10 mothers said that their violent partner had also beaten their children. As a result, the children developed serious anxiety symptoms, starting with bed-wetting. They have difficulty concentrating on school work and become poor achievers. One in three youngsters became violent and aggressive. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Perry Barr.
That becomes a self-perpetuating syndrome because as those children grow up they inflict the same punishment on the next generation. Many develop serious sleeping problems. They become anxious and withdrawn and find it difficult to trust anybody, let alone develop an ability to form close relationships. The survey shows that children witness violence over long periods. On average, the relationships that were described as violent lasted about seven years. That is dreadfully oppressing for children.
I trust that time and resources will be made available to continue to study the effect on children and the help that we can give them. They are innocent victims, and I shudder at the thought of the helpless cry of a child going unanswered. They are our highest priority. It is essential to make sure that we continue to tackle domestic violence with the vigour that we have shown so far. It must be treated as a crime, and the perpetrators must be brought to justice.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I have taken a special interest in this subject because of Edinburgh's pioneering role in the zero tolerance campaign. I pay tribute to Franki Raffles, the brilliant designer of that campaign, who, tragically, died a few months ago. She is sorely missed, but the work that she started goes on. Many local authorities in Scotland and, I think, in England as well have adopted the zero tolerance


campaign or a variant of it. Local authorities in Scotland have come together to carry the campaign forward, and are commissioning new material to extend it into a new phase.
The problem with the campaigns by local authorities is that not every part of Scotland will be covered. As hon. Members would expect, I propose to concentrate on Scotland. Highland region will not take part in the campaign. People in Edinburgh and elsewhere have been demanding for a long time that the Scottish Office take the initiative and organise and co-ordinate that campaign.
It would be churlish to deny that the Scottish Office has taken some action. There has been an advertising campaign in Scotland, and that part of it on television has not been too bad. However, the poster campaign has not been handled in the best possible way. One reason for that is that the main poster in Scotland reinforced the stereotype of domestic violence, depicting it as a working-class problem. For the benefit of hon. Members who are not from Scotland, I should say that the poster featured two fists with tattoos stating Love and Hate and a caption which read, Which one will she get tonight? The tattoos have class implications.
One of the important aims of the Edinburgh campaign is to establish that the problem pervades all classes in society. That was a flaw in the Scottish Office poster campaign. Regrettably, the advertising campaign has now ended, and, as far as I know, the Scottish Office does not intend to take it further.
We need not a campaign but a strategy, and that which is being formed by the local authorities is based, first, on prevention; secondly, on provision; and, thirdly, on protection. As other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I shall be brief in describing each of those.
Prevention has been pioneered by the zero tolerance campaign in Edinburgh, which is based on raising the issue and trying to tackle the attitudes that lead to domestic violence. The campaign was based on the fundamental assumption that domestic violence was part of a continuum of violence against women and children, which is why sexual abuse and rape were included. That continuum expands to lesser forms of violence such as slapping, but they are also serious.
The zero tolerance campaign grasped the fundamental issue that domestic violence is rooted in male power and control over women. The underlying background to domestic violence is the historic belief that men have the right to have that power and control. The campaign has been willing to grasp that nettle. It must be grasped, which means challenging men.
Great unevenness of provision exists Scotland. There are whole areas where no refuge provision exists. That issue must be grasped at Scottish Office level. There is not enough provision, even in local authorities that have it. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has issued guidelines on how many refuges each local authority should have, but not one local authority in Scotland meets those guidelines. That is a funding issue for the Scottish Office.
The protection of women has various aspects. First, men must be properly sentenced once they have been convicted. Secondly, proper help must be given to women who want to get injunctions. The diminution of legal aid makes it more difficult for women to get injunctions to protect themselves against men who are threatening them.

Thirdly, there is retaliation, which is not such a frequent issue, but which arises in quite a few cases in relation to the protection of women.
When the matter was last debated nearly two years ago, I referred to the "Brookside" programme. The plot that I mentioned then is still running, as some hon. Members will know. That programme will cover the issue of what happens to a woman who understandably retaliates when the position becomes impossible. The character in that programme will be tried for murder. It will be a topical issue, which must be dealt with.
This morning, I was pleased to read in The Scotsman that a 60-year-old woman who drew a knife on her husband when she was being attacked was just admonished in court yesterday. Perhaps things are changing, but I also read in this mornings Edinburgh Evening News a depressing story about a victim of rape who had £3,000 of the £4,000 that she had received in compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board taken away because she had committed various minor breach of the peace offences. It is a shocking indictment of society that a rape victim could be considered worthy of only £1,000 in compensation.
The protection of women victims involves many issues. I hope, and the campaign that local authorities are co-ordinating in Scotland is demanding, that a working party should be formed to consider the protection of women and the treatment of domestic violence by the criminal justice system.
Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall draw may remarks to a close. I hope that the Government will consider the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. I concede that the Scottish Office has done something, but I hope that it will do much more.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on bringing this important subject to the Floor of the House. Domestic violence has a low public profile, but it is disturbingly widespread. As we have heard, it is the second most common form of violence reported to the police, and it makes up a quarter of all recorded crime.
Of course, of all crimes, it is perhaps the hardest for the Government to tackle. We can put more police on the streets, try to make houses burglar-proof, and encourage neighbourhood watch schemes, but none of that will protect a woman or a child from domestic violence. What can we do? Today, we have heard some of the solutions that are being proposed, but, especially in a crisis, we need to make it as easy as possible for victims to leave their homes where they cannot live safely and, if they choose, to take action against their tormentors.
In combating domestic violence, the first priority is to tackle refuge overcrowding and funding problems. Money must be made available to local authorities so that they can provide one refuge place per 10,000 of the population as part of a national strategy for refuge provision. Voluntary groups, many of which provide refuges, suffer from a dreadful insecurity of funding, and therefore of long-term planning.
I agree that legal action is a difficult and sensitive issue. If a victim of violence does not wish the police to take action, should they go ahead, regardless of her wishes, so that society sends the message to perpetrators that such


behaviour will not go unpunished? It may be that the desire not to have the offender prosecuted arises from fear of repercussions, of being made homeless, or of not being able to provide for children. It may simply arise from not wanting to be alone. If so, we should be helping that person by offering her the choice through housing and financial and emotional support.
Fear of the legal process may be, and often is, a factor, but the major factor influencing victims of domestic violence is often a genuine desire to avoid prosecution because of their love for the perpetrator as a husband or father—which is often difficult to believe—because of the knowledge of the effect that the prosecution will have on other members of the family, especially young children, or, as we heard earlier, because of threats and coercion.
What we in Westminster see as the right thing to do is never an easy option. It is often difficult to decide whether to prosecute. We can ensure that the best possible counselling and advice is made available, and that all unnecessary fears are dealt with.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr mentioned the spread of departments and organisations involved at local level. That makes an inter-agency approach essential. The police and social services, health and education departments all have a part to play. There is an example of that teamwork in Dorset, where all those agencies are taking part in a domestic violence project in an attempt accurately to assess the scale of the problem and to consider the appropriate police response.
The purpose of that inter-agency forum is
to identify and monitor the incidence and nature of domestic and family violence … to reduce the risk of violence in the home or arising from those relationships termed as domestic and family violence, to emphasise the unacceptability of this behaviour, to reduce the risks to adults and children who are exposed to domestic and family violence, to respond to the needs of those affected.
The project began only a few weeks ago, on 1 March, but the project co-ordinator, Detective Sergeant Gill Donnell, says that, already, an increasing number of self-referrals are being made to the project by victims who would have been reticent in making contact directly with the police. That is an example of the sort of approach that the Government should be encouraging.
It is difficult to say that we will ever eliminate domestic violence. It has been, and certainly will be, with us for a long time, but, by publicising the fact that people who are suffering have someone to whom they can go, and by providing properly funded counselling and, as a last resort, refuges, we can limit the suffering.

Ms Jean Corston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his success in securing a debate on this important subject. It is important to women, important in terms of the law, important for children and the viability of family life, and certainly important to policy makers.
Two weeks ago, I presented a Bill on the subject of domestic violence. It called attention to three issues: the unacceptability of domestic violence, which is criminal behaviour; the provision of information about the legal remedies available to people who suffer domestic violence; and refuge provision for people fleeing domestic violence.
As hon. Members have said, domestic violence has a long history. We all know the phrase rule of thumb, but not many of us know that it comes from the old idea that a man was allowed to beat his wife so long as he did not use a stick any thicker than his thumb. People routinely use the phrase, without realising its derivation. Mention has also been made of the fact that domestic violence is no respecter of social class, and is indeed an expression of male power over women, which the phrase rule of thumb adequately describes.
It is important to recognise the effect that domestic violence has on children and women. A friend of mine in her forties said that it was only when observing the married relationships of her friends that she realised that domestic violence was not the norm. Her father had beaten her mother, and her husband had beaten her. She thought that was what marriage was like—that is the view of a youngish to middle-aged woman today.
The effect of domestic violence on children sometimes has to be seen to be believed. A couple of years ago, I represented in court a woman who was applying to commit her husband to prison for breach of a domestic violence injunction. She had been getting injunctions against him for years. He had beaten her, assaulted her with a knife and thrown furniture at her. His behaviour was utterly outrageous, unacceptable and criminal, but, as it occurred in the private home, the remedies open to the woman were not the same as they would have been had he assaulted a total stranger. She came to court with her mother and children.
The behaviour of her four-year-old boy had to be seen to be believed. He had witnessed his fathers violent behaviour day in and day out, and had clearly learned that might was right. He had no respect for his mother, because his father had no respect for her. He was clearly caught in a cycle of violence, which one suspects will be repeated down the generations. I was told that he was receiving behavioural therapy, but I wonder how successful it will be. He is likely to beat up any woman or women with whom he has a relationship.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who has spoken up in the House on this issue since he was elected at the same time as me. He referred to Edinburgh district councils zero tolerance campaign. Bristol city council is very impressed with the style of the campaign and the way in which information is being conveyed to the public, and is planning a similar campaign.
In 1993, the Select Committee on Home Affairs reported:
We recommend that the Home Office and the Lord Chancellors Department fund a campaign designed to raise awareness among the public, and in particular actual and potential perpetrators and victims, of the criminality of domestic violence, the opportunities for redress and the willingness of authorities to treat the matter seriously.
The Governments action on that recommendation has been found wanting.
Hon. Members have mentioned the law, and I am delighted that a Bill from another place will consolidate existing legislation, which is confused. The fact that we have any legislation at all is in very great measure due to the sterling work done by the former Member for Barking, Jo Richardson, who was a dear friend to many of us. She was behind the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage


and the work that led to the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978.
One of those Acts covers only married people while the other covers unmarried people, and the injunctions available are different in the two jurisdictions. There is no protection for unmarried people who have to return to their parents homes, and lawyers trying to advise women who suffer domestic violence have to pick their way through a minefield of legislation, which clearly needs consolidation. I hope that the House will take full advantage of the opportunity that is to be provided
I recently met representatives from Bristol Womens Aid, who made several important points at their annual general meeting. One involved the effect on women of Government cuts in the legal aid budget. While local authorities are trying to disseminate information about the availability of remedies, it is becoming increasingly difficult for women to seek the protection of the courts, because of the unavailability of legal aid. The women referred to refuge provision and the fact that, in 1975, the Select Committee had recommended one place for every 10,000 of the population. We have not reached even a third of that figure.
The women also talked to me about the need for a co-ordinated approach at local level. We are lucky in Bristol, in that it is an innovative city. It was in Bristol that victim support, health centres and family mediation began, and for a long time we have had a domestic violence forum involving the police, the courts, the local authority, womens organisations and Womens Aid, which give information to protect women who are vulnerable because of their housing arrangements and those who are fleeing domestic violence.
It is most important that we say that women are not victims, which is the impression given when we deal with the problem by allowing people to flee a violent relationship and then offering them refuge—it is like firefighting. We need strategies that enable women to recognise their own strength, and the fact that they are suffering violence. We should be turning our attention to the aggressors and saying that their behaviour is unacceptable. The more men who say that, the better.
Women are often told to stay indoors because the streets can be very unsafe, yet a quarter of all recorded crime is in the home. Where are women safe? If they stay indoors, they might run the risk of being beaten up, but on the streets they are frightened of crime.
It is important to have a co-ordinated approach for women who suffer domestic violence. We must tell men when their behaviour is unacceptable, but, in the meantime, more refuges must be provided. We must support local initiatives that help women and children and educate male perpetrators of domestic violence. This should be at the forefront of public policy, to enable family life to be the example and experience that most of us would wish.

Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on stimulating a debate that has brought into focus the cross-Chamber consensus about the importance of this issue. He made a carefully targeted speech, and gave notice of the serious issues that he

intended to raise. I shall be brief, in order to give the Minister plenty of time to respond. Domestic violence is a wide topic, but I shall keep to the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) highlighted a series of legal complexities. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will do all they can to simplify the law in this sphere. The legal system should benefit the victims rather than the perpetrators.
Victims feel that they are at sea in what is virtually a minefield of complexities, and we need to simplify the way in which we deal with such matters. I also agreed very much with my hon. Friends strong point about the need to talk to men, and not only to women, about the issues which are the focus of this debate.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) referred to the Government publicity campaign, which, of course, was one of the recommendations by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. She was right to say that people need to be continually encouraged not to stand for domestic violence, but that message needs to be backed up.
People need to be confident that, if they choose not to stand for it, the necessary systems will support them and the police, local authorities and voluntary organisations will have the resources as well as the training, the understanding of the problem and the ability to provide help where it is needed. It is a prime example of how central Government need to reward as well as demand co-operation and a partnership approach at local level.
Since dealing with domestic violence is difficult and complex, time is needed to develop expertise and local strategies, which several hon. Members have said are vital if the problem is to be properly addressed. A fragmentation of responsibilities does not help. People who work in education, social services, housing, health, the police and voluntary organisations all feel under pressure, but they need some flexibility, so that they can spend time listening to the way in which problems arise for other agencies and fully understand how to implement effective strategies.
It is probably true to say, as I have found, that many hon. Members have been shocked by the experience of dealing with constituency cases of domestic violence. Two things stand out. One is the number of women who continue to suffer in the matrimonial home, long after the situation seems to have become totally unreasonable and unacceptable. They continue to try to maintain the structure of the marriage and the family long beyond what could be expected of them.
The other aspect is the number of women who leave home and fend for themselves after violence has reached breaking point. Instead of putting themselves at the mercy of different departments and expecting the local authorities or the police to sort out their problems, some women try to fend for themselves and thereby compromise their rights to housing. Following the split of a family, women may find themselves in unsatisfactory housing, being told that they are adequately housed. We need to shift priorities. It is difficult for housing authorities to deal with domestic violence, but in many ways it is a special case, and ways to deal with it should be found.
As hon. Members of all parties have said, the police take domestic violence much more seriously nowadays. However, on occasions it remains difficult to distinguish


in practice between domestic disputes in which it may be six of one and half a dozen of the other, and those cases when one of the partners is a vulnerable and damaged victim. Such incidents are very difficult for officers to deal with, and it puts them under great pressure. Officers need training and background in the subject, and they should have the opportunity to give time to such incidents, so that they may understand properly what is happening.
There have been several references to the work of Womens Aid and the role of refuges. We need to ensure an adequate network of such facilities up and down the country, but we must also understand that we are not just considering temporary or crisis housing—an immediately available roof, important though that it is. Sympathy and support should be given through a traumatic period that may often go on for a considerable time following the short time in a refuge.
That is a specifically targeted activity, during which knowledge and experience—down-to-earth approaches—are needed. It is a good example of how the voluntary sector has the flexibility to respond often much better then statutory services are able. Support for the voluntary sector needs to be guaranteed and continued, so that services do not become fragmented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr specifically referred to the way in which victims are treated in court. He was absolutely correct. Often, victims and public-spirited individuals who come forward as witnesses feel that the system damages and violates them a second time.
Efforts have been made to improve the situation, but victims are still marginal in our courts and criminal justice system, and there is no room for complacency. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment positively on that. If he is able to say that he will press further to make the court and criminal justice system generally more sympathetic to victims, he may be assured of a positive response from the Labour party.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) made a powerful reference to domestic violence as a problem which pervades all classes of society. We need to take that very much to heart. There is still a general impression that violence takes place in only one section of society. He is right to say that examples fall in all parts of society.
The zero tolerance campaign, to which my hon. Friend referred, is in many ways showing the way forward in raising public awareness, and I commend it. It is a co-ordinated and high-profile approach to informing public opinion. My hon. Friend was absolutely right, however, to go on to say that we need a strategic approach which starts by tackling attitudes in society as a whole, rather than simply saying that domestic violence is some sort of aberration which may be dealt with in isolation.
I hope that the Minister will also be able to tell us a little about how the Government and his Department intend to press forward with giving effect to the important recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. One of the main recommendations was to upgrade the quality of national statistics on domestic violence. Indeed, the whole question of research is important. It is necessary to conduct research on what works, as well as the nature of the problem, to understand changes and to have the results of that research quickly available to practitioners.
The Select Committee also placed great stress on the importance of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in discussing questions of poor and good practice and good management with chief officers of police. That needs to be followed through year after year, and not be only a one-off.
The Committee also recommended learning from good practice; ensuring that domestic violence units are not marginalised in the police force; learning from local approaches such as the experimental domestic violence crisis intervention team that is being established in Islington, to which it specifically referred; and generally disseminating best practice. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that more progress will be made in following through those recommendations, and that inter-agency approaches will be generally encouraged and helped.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr also referred to prosecution. Several Select Committee recommendations referred to the responsibilities of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Committee thought that the CPS should make itself better informed about developments in the area of domestic violence. The Committee specifically recommended that the CPS look at the possibility of duress causing the victim of domestic violence to withdraw the complaint. That is a very important and sensitive area, which my hon. Friend was absolutely right to highlight.
I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the Government will take the initiative, linked with the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and agencies, to try to tease out the best way in which to ensure that the law can be changed for the better.
Intimidation is a problem. We should take great care that we do not go too far, and perhaps force people to pursue complaints that they genuinely wish to withdraw, but also that we shift the balance towards protecting victims and finding how to assemble evidence when intimidation has happened more than once. That is a delicate area that needs to be dealt with, and I hope that the Minister will say that he will take it seriously and develop it for the immediate future.
I believe that the co-ordinating role of local authorities at chief officer level is right, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr referred specifically to Northampton. It is clear that, where chief officers have taken a specific interest, there has been a shift in attitude and policy within departments. Where councillors have taken a specific interest in the development of policy, that too has produced good results.
There is a need for independent advice and help. For instance, the Cardiff housing help centre was specifically established to be independent of the housing department, so that it could focus on the interests of the people who came forward.
I should have liked to develop one more crucial area—the central question of how children are dealt with. But as I said at the outset, I shall be brief, so as to allow the Minister plenty of time to respond. I hope that he will say that he and his departmental colleagues will consider the issue again, and will keep it under review across the Department, encouraging local approaches across organisations, departments and authorities, and assisting in the development of effective strategies at local level to reflect a proper sense of priorities at national level.
I hope, too, that the Minister will show a full appreciation of the important role that the voluntary sector can play, and of the need for that sector—Womens Aid,


victim support and other local organisations—to have the continuity and capacity to bring their knowledge and experience to bear for the benefit of victims, and therefore for the benefit of society as a whole in the long term.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on raising such an important subject for debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for allowing me more time to enable me to respond as fully as possible to the subjects raised in the debate.
Let the House be in no doubt that the Government are in no doubt at all about the seriousness of the problem. Few people realise that domestic violence accounts for a large part of the nations violent crime. The best statistics I have, dating from 1993, show that there were about 197,000 examples of domestic violence within the statistics on violence in general.
I have listened carefully to the various points made, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out the measures that the Government are taking to tackle that especially appalling crime. As everyone has said, domestic violence should never be tolerated, either by those suffering the violence or by the wider community.
The effects of domestic violence can be especially devastating, as the suffering endured is often prolonged over many years, at the hands not of a stranger but of someone who is in a relationship with the victim. It is a crime that invariably occurs not out on the streets or in some public place but in the home, where we should all be able to feel safe and secure. The home is not a place where a woman, a child or any of us should feel a sense of danger or terror.
Clearly, domestic violence involves a combination of physical, emotional, sexual and psychological abuse within a relationship, and can damage both the woman and her children. Victims of domestic violence are usually women, but that is not always the case. In most cases, the perpetrator of the violence will be a spouse, a partner or a former boy friend or girl friend.
To say that is not, however, to deny the existence of other forms of inter-relationship violence by other family members—for example, fathers, brothers or sons—and, as we know, there are a number of elderly victims. Feelings of guilt, hopelessness, fear and depression are common. Domestic violence is not limited to any particular social group or class, but, as has already been said, occurs across the social spectrum.
The Government recognise that domestic violence not only causes damage to its immediate victims but may also affect children within the relationship. Children may be at risk of suffering long-term psychological and emotional damage as a result of witnessing the violence perpetrated against their mothers, or of experiencing the stresses and tensions involved in living in an environment where the likelihood of violence is ever present. They may also become victims of violence and abuse themselves. Witnessing domestic violence may also have the effect of teaching children that violence is a legitimate response to problems.
There have been some calls to amend the Children Act 1989 to create a new category of children in need to encompass children who live in situations of domestic

violence. I understand, however, that it is not necessary to amend the Act in that way, as each local authority already has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in its area, and evidence of domestic violence may be an indication that a child is in need.
Schools may address issues of relevance to tackling domestic violence through the national curriculum, through their programmes of sex education, and, in the wider curriculum, through their programmes of personal, social and health education.
The Government believe that the response to domestic violence needs to involve action on several fronts, directed towards ensuring that the perpetrators are brought to justice, that victims receive the emotional and practical support they require, and that steps are taken, through education and community initiatives, towards prevention in the long term. We believe that effective action requires the commitment and involvement of all local agencies, working together to develop local preventive strategies, and to provide help and support to women suffering from domestic violence.
In order to co-ordinate an effective and concerted Government response to domestic violence, interdepartmental groups were set up at both official and ministerial level in 1993. The groups set about taking forward the Governments reply to the 1993 Home Affairs Select Committee report on domestic violence.
The official group has met four times to discuss the key areas of raising public awareness, improving the way in which agencies can respond to those suffering from domestic violence, and refuge provision. I shall talk more about some of those issues later.
Proposals for increasing public awareness and inter-agency co-operation were endorsed by the ministerial group on domestic violence. Both the official and ministerial groups are due to meet again to examine a range of issues, such as improving the collection of statistics on domestic violence, and the nature and extent of refuge provision. Because of the hidden nature of domestic violence, it is especially difficult to get an exact idea of how many cases exist.
Of course, to prevent crimes of violence within the home in this and future generations, there is a need to change attitudes and behaviour. It is also clear that effective action extends beyond the criminal justice system. Towards that end, the Government recently funded a domestic violence awareness publicity campaign made up of several strands of action to help those suffering abuse.
The campaign, which took place last autumn, used the slogan, Domestic Violence—Don't Stand For It, and focused on the criminality of domestic violence and the right of all people to live their lives free of fear and abuse. The message communicated was that domestic violence is first and foremost a crime that should not and will not be tolerated. That message was directed at the victims of domestic violence as well as the perpetrators, to help them realise that they will be taken seriously and that they should seek the help and assistance that is available.
The campaign was a large one, consisting of 500,000 guidance leaflets and 100,000 indoor posters, which were distributed to voluntary and statutory agencies. A taped version of the guidance leaflet was also produced for the blind and visually handicapped. A short public information film called "Don't Stand For It" was shown


across 350 cinemas for a period of six weeks, and is estimated to have reached an audience of 1 million viewers.
The materials used in the campaign all gave details of a telephone helpline. Briefing packs were also prepared for the media, to encourage them to run complementary articles and features. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for drawing attention to the effort that the Government put into that campaign.
To have an idea of the pay-off, we should have to ask Sir Paul Condon, for example, and he would confirm that, in every division in the Metropolitan police, there is a domestic violence unit, and there has been a large increase in the number of people coming forward to report violence. That is good in itself, but of course the downside is that Sir Pauls figures for violence in the metropolitan area will increase this year. However, we must understand clearly that the good side of those figures is the fact that women are coming forward to report violence that existed before but was not reported.
As well as getting victims to seek the help they need, we are also encouraging them to work with the criminal justice system to apprehend the perpetrators of these crimes. A number of initiatives have been undertaken to create an effective response to domestic violence, which will engender the confidence needed in victims to come forward.
Victims are often afraid to come forward in case they will be subjected to further threats and violence. If we are to succeed in combatting domestic violence, we must give victims the confidence to break their silence and help end their personal suffering.
Those who intimidate witnesses can currently be charged with the common law offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contains a new offence of intimidating a witness, juror or someone assisting the police. This is designed to deter would-be intimidators, and to make it easier to prosecute those who do intimidate.
The new offence, which came into force on 3 February this year, will remove the requirement of the existing offence to prove that the intimidation was intended to pervert the course of justice. Under the new offence, offenders could be convicted simply on the basis that they intimidated a person whom they knew to be a witness.
There are already a number of practical measures in place to protect witnesses from intimidation. For instance, witness addresses are removed as a matter of course from copies of statements passed to the defence. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which reported in 1993, made a number of recommendations designed further to increase support and protection for witnesses.
Courts should make greater use of their existing powers, to enable statements of witnesses other than the defendant to be read out where the witness is afraid to give oral evidence. The recommendation has been drawn to the attention of all serving judges, and will be used in judicial training seminars. Witnesses who do not wish to have their addresses read out in court—as is the normal practice—should be allowed to hand them in to court or

be able to use accommodation addresses, with the leave of the court. Courts have the discretion to allow the information to be withheld.
In cases where the victim fears for his or her personal safety because a defendant is about to be released on bail or following a successful appeal, particular care will be taken. Departments are considering what further steps can be taken on a multi-agency basis to assist victims and witnesses who fear for their personal safety or that of their families.
Police policy on domestic violence is important, and is based on the premise that assaults within private relationships are no less criminally serious than violence which takes place between strangers out in the street. In July 1990, guidance was issued to the police in England, Wales and Scotland to ensure a quick and effective response to domestic violence, taking into account the overriding needs of the victim. Similar guidance was issued in Northern Ireland in 1991.
All police forces now have a force policy on domestic violence. The policies emphasise the overriding duty to protect victims and children from further attack, the need to treat domestic violence as seriously as any other form of violence, the use and value of powers of arrest, the dangers of seeking reconciliation between assailant and victim, and the importance of keeping records to monitor the policy in practice.
Forces throughout the UK were also encouraged to set up dedicated domestic violence units or to appoint officers to deal specifically with domestic violence cases and to liaise with other agencies working in the field.
The Crown Prosecution Service treats cases of domestic violence seriously. It has also examined its procedures in order to ensure an effective response. In 1993, it updated and published its comprehensive guide issued to staff for dealing with domestic violence cases, and that procedure is again under review and will shortly be updated. The CPS recognises and endorses the principle that violence in a domestic background is not a factor which reduces the seriousness of the offending.
The CPS does not act directly on behalf of individual victims or represent them in court in the criminal proceedings, because it has to take decisions reflecting the overall public interest, rather than the particular interests of any one person. Nevertheless, Crown prosecutors always think very carefully about the interests of the victim, which are important, when deciding where the public interest lies.
A vital matter in ensuring that the victims of crime have the necessary confidence in the criminal justice system is the sentencing process. Effective penalties also act as a deterrent to potential offenders. The sentencing decisions of the courts have the capacity to inspire or dilute that confidence. For domestic violence to be seen to be tackled vigorously by the criminal justice system, it is essential that sentencing decisions are based on the premise that assaults within private relationships are no less serious than violence between strangers.
We are committed to ensuring that the courts have the powers to sentence offenders appropriately. As with other types of crime, custody is appropriate in the most serious cases. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 enables courts to impose a longer sentence upon a violent or sexual offender than is justified by the seriousness of the offence, if such a sentence is necessary to protect the public from harm.
The Government have also given their support to the increase of the maximum penalty for attempted rape to life imprisonment, and of that for indecent assault on a woman to 10 years. In 1991, the House of Lords confirmed an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal that rape within marriage was unlawful. That ruling is particularly important in enabling the courts to deal with cases of domestic violence, where such cases occur, with the severity they deserve.
Every effort is being made to ensure that the best use is made of facilities available to accommodate the needs of victims who give evidence in court, particularly in cases of domestic violence where there has been violence or abuse which may have left the witness feeling intimidated or in a vulnerable state. The courts charter, published in November 1992, recognised the needs of potential witnesses who may be apprehensive about appearing in court. The Crown court witness service also plays an important role in supporting the victims of domestic violence. It provides information, advice and emotional support to witnesses attending the Crown court.
The civil law has a vital role to play in providing those suffering from domestic violence with an effective legal avenue of protection and redress. The Government have recently introduced the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, which is currently receiving detailed consideration by the Special Public Bills Committee in another place. The Bill replaces the piecemeal remedies available under the current statutory framework with a single, consistent set of remedies which will be available to all courts with family jurisdiction.
Two types of orders will be available—non-molestation orders prohibiting particular behaviour or molestation generally; and occupation orders with a variety of possible terms, either declaratory or regulatory. Those could, for example, define occupation rights in the home, including the exclusion of the respondent from it and, where appropriate, an area around it.
The orders will be available to a wide range of people within a loosely defined domestic or family relationship. At present, only current spouses and cohabitants can apply for remedies. Under the new Bill, that will be extended to cover former spouses, former cohabitants, certain relatives, others who live or have lived in the same household, parents of a child or in relation to any child, persons who have had parental responsibility for that child, and parties to the same family proceedings.
Where there has been violence or threatened violence, the court will be required to attach a power of arrest to an order unless the applicant or relevant child would be adequately protected without it. That will reinforce the

ability of the police to assist in preventing the escalation of violence and the intimidation of the victim. The changes represent not only a clarification of the existing law, but also a strengthening of the civil remedies available for domestic violence.
As I stated earlier, truly effective action against domestic violence requires the commitment and involvement of local agencies working in concert to develop local preventative strategies and to provide help and support to the victims. The ministerial group on domestic violence has approved proposals for an inter-agency circular on domestic violence, which will be issued shortly to a wide range of statutory and voluntary agencies. It will set out the Governments approach to the issue, and encourage all local agencies to co-ordinate their responses to domestic violence.
No one agency can meet the needs of those who experience domestic violence. Recent developments, involving co-operation between the police, local authorities and voluntary agencies, have highlighted the importance of inter-agency work as potentially a more effective way of addressing domestic violence.
In particular, the establishment of a local domestic violence forum—whereby representatives from a range of services in both the statutory and voluntary sectors come together at the local level to provide the necessary services and support of the local community—represents one model through which to focus inter-agency efforts to improve support and services for women experiencing domestic violence, and also for co-ordinating resources for men to stop using violence.
The Home Office programme development unit is currently funding several innovative projects, looking at the potential of treatment programmes for offenders. The aim of the experimental approaches being taken is to find out what approaches are the most effective in tackling domestic violence.
Research and evaluation are important. That evaluation is taking place in the court-ordered Change and Lothian treatment programmes—that is the Dobash report. The results of the evaluation are currently being considered, and will provide much-needed information on the efficacy of treatment programmes for men who are violent.
The range of measures being taken forward by the Government to tackle domestic violence, which I have outlined, reaffirms our commitment to effectively responding to this most distressing of crimes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We now move to the debate on the future of Guys hospital.

Guys Hospital

Mr. Roger Sims: Thirteen months ago, the Secretary of State for Health announced, in the context of the Tomlinson report, her strategic direction in respect of the future disposition of services on the two sites owned by the Guys and St. Thomass Hospital trust. The trust subsequently made its proposals, which have been considered by the local health commission and the regional health authority and now sit on the Secretary of States desk awaiting a decision. In making that decision, she will be advised by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, to whom I am grateful for attending this debate to listen to what I and others have to say before finalising his views.
Discussions on how services should be rationalised between the two hospitals predated the report of the Tomlinson inquiry, which considered the provision of medical services in London as a whole. Unfortunately, the administrative and clinical staff of the two hospitals had difficulties in reaching a consensus. I give credit to the Secretary of State for at least seeking to grasp the nettle in making a statement on 10 February 1994, in which she said:
We therefore intend to ask the trust to pursue proposals that, over time, will concentrate acute and specialist hospital services at the St. Thomass site.—[Official Report, 10 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 460.]
She went on to propose that Guys should be used almost exclusively for teaching and research.
The reaction to her announcement was immediate: from consultants, some of whom were my constituents; from people living in the vicinity of Guys; and from patients and ex-patients of the hospital, some of whom were also my constituents. Following that, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in whose constituency Guys hospital lies, called together a group of interested people, formed the Save Guys Hospital campaign, and invited the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and me to join him as co-chairmen.
The campaign management group consists of doctors, nurses, patients representatives, a solicitor, trade unionists and others, of all political persuasions and of none, united in their concern about the hospital. May I record my respect for the work of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who has, primus inter pares of the chairmen, conducted the affairs of a disparate group with considerable diligence and diplomacy, enabling its members to work well together?
The more I became involved with the group, the more I became convinced that the information on which the Secretary of States decision was based was inaccurate and inadequate. My personal concerns—other hon. Members will no doubt express their worries—stemmed from three aspects.
First, the accident and emergency service at Guys is currently much used by local people; other hon. Members will certainly wish to refer to that dimension. In addition, however, there is a commuter population of some 300,000 people who work each day in the City. Inevitably, among them accidents, emergencies and illnesses occur daily, not to mention the possibility of large-scale incidents such as the Cannon street rail crash or terrorist outrages, both of which the City has experienced in recent years. With the Barts service now closed, it is essential that the City has an easily accessible A and E department.
Secondly, Guys has a number of important specialist services such as oncology, cardiac, renal, neurology, ophthalmology, and ear, nose and throat, to which thousands of patients throughout south-east London—indeed, south-east England as a whole—are referred by their GPs. For them, Guys is extremely conveniently placed in terms of public transport, as it is literally on the doorstep of London Bridge station and the bus station. Ease of access is important for patients, but equally so for relatives who wish to visit. No other hospital—certainly not St. Thomass—is as easily accessible.
Thirdly, earlier plans for developing Guys included the construction of Philip Harris house, partly funded from charitable sources. It was planned, designed and built to house the specialist services to which I referred, equipped with the latest technology, and has just been completed at a cost of £154 million. It is incomprehensible that it should not be used for the purposes for which it was intended.
May I make it clear that, while the Save Guys Hospital campaigns purpose has been and continues to be to retain Guys as a viable hospital, it is in no sense antagonistic towards St. Thomass? The issue is the most cost-effective allocation of resources between the sites and the distribution of services between the hospitals, which will provide the greatest benefit to patients.
The campaign group examined in detail the facts and figures pertaining to both hospitals and the implications of the Secretary of States instruction. To assist in that analysis, it commissioned KPMG, which produced a thorough report incorporating alternative proposals, which were clinically coherent, carefully costed and involved less capital expenditure. The campaign group drew on that report in submitting its observations and alternative proposals to the hospital trust.
In due course, the hospital trust issued its proposals, which were to close Guys A and E; to bring together most of the specialist clinical departments on the St. Thomass site; to develop a centre at Guys for day surgery and day treatment; and to bring together the medical and dental schools and Kings college on the Guys site. What the trust effectively proposed, therefore, was to close the A and E department at Guys altogether and gradually transfer most specialties to St. Thomass while producing at the Guys site a centre for what was described as planned surgery, which would be without any back-up facilities such as intensive care—a proposition that much clinical opinion believes to be unsafe. By implication, the trust rejected the KPMG plans and the campaigns variation on them, although it did not argue them in detail.
Those proposals then went to the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health commission, which clearly considered the objections that had been made to it. It effectively decided that the proposals should be implemented, but over a period of five to seven years rather than four. Its recommendation was that the A and E department should be kept open until 31 December 1998 and should not be closed until the expansion plans for the Kings, Lewisham and St. Thomass hospital site were in place, until the London ambulance service was meeting acceptable standards and until the programme to improve primary and community care services in Bermondsey, Rotherhithe and north Southwark had been implemented.
It recommended that plans to bring together most of the services currently on the two sites on to the St. Thomass site should proceed, as should developing day surgery at Guys, but that such implementation should be spread over a period of up to seven years and that the trust should be provided with additional funds to facilitate that.
When those recommendations were passed to the South Regional health authority, it did little more than endorse them. In a letter to some of my hon. Friends, the Minister says that it did so after detailed consideration, but I question that assertion. The members of the authority were given only a brief summary of the consultation process and its outcome and, in his report to the authority, the regional director advised members that
no credible alternative plans were put forward during consultation.
The KPMG plans may well be susceptible to criticism, but to dismiss them by implication as incredible was surely grossly irresponsible. It is worth pointing out that members of the authority were not given an opportunity to study them until the last minute.
The regional director said that the commissions proposal is
responsive to the concerns raised and proposes a timescale which acknowledges local or public anxieties.
I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will similarly acknowledge those anxieties, which were reflected in the response to the consultation process.

Sir John Gorst: Will my hon. Friend advise the House on one specific matter? Guys has, to my knowledge, a reputation for being a centre of excellence, mainly because of its pioneering work in many fields—research, development and so on. Is such history and experience transferable from one hospital on the Guys site to St. Thomass, or is there likely to be any loss in the process?

Mr. Sims: I suppose that in theory anything is transferable, but surely there must be some loss of quality and of personnel if one starts shifting well-established centres from one site to another.

Sir John Gorst: Has that been considered?

Mr. Sims: It was certainly considered by the campaign group. I hope that it is being considered by the Minister and the Secretary of State.
I was referring to the consultation process. In the course of it, a petition raised by the campaign attracted many more than 1 million signatures and was presented to the House a few weeks ago; another, in similar terms, organised by Unison, bore 30,000 names. In addition, 350 individual letters were written objecting to the plans, compared with 23 in support, and 3,000 standard letters of objection were submitted.
Nowhere in the documents is reference made to the reaction from overseas, where there are many doctors who trained as students or postgraduates at Guys. Earlier this week, I handed the Prime Minister a folder containing 184 letters from distinguished clinicians throughout the world expressing alarm and astonishment at the implication of the closure proposals.
I have not sought the debate to suggest to the Secretary of State or the Minister that the recommendations should be rejected in toto and that we return to square one, but I invite him to recognise their considerable implications and to modify them substantially.
Is it logical, having accepted that the A and E department at Guys cannot be closed in the next year or two, to say that it is to be closed at the end of 1998? If it is unsafe to close it now, surely it is unwise to specify that it will close in less than four years time. It is not difficult to visualise the blighting effect that that will have on A and E and on other services, which will begin to decline, will lose members from the expert clinical teams there and find recruitment of the best people impossible. Surely it would be sensible simply to say that the A and E department will remain open and work normally and that its future will be reviewed in a few years time in the light of circumstances then prevailing—circumstances that cannot, at the moment, possibly be foreseen.
How can concentrating specialties on the St. Thomass site, at an estimated cost for additional building of £54 million, be justified when Phillip Harris house, already completed at a cost of £154 million and incorporating the latest medical technology for renal, oncology, cardiac and neurology services, is not to be used to the full? Incidentally, if it is not so used, the future of the £25 million charity money donated for the building is, to put it no higher, uncertain.
The proposal is even more difficult to justify now that we know that the United medical and dental school and Kings college London will not need all the space allocated to them at Guys. Surely the space use needs to be re-assessed. What is needed is to devise a technically and clinically coherent and cost-effective solution that would provide specialist services on both sites but with minimal duplication.
The status quo, to coin a phrase, is not an option. Change is inevitable—indeed, essential—but it must be realistic, it must be orderly and it must ensure that the best possible use is made of the two sites, of the existing buildings and of limited financial resources in the interests of those for whom the two hospitals, and indeed the national health service, primarily exist—patients.
I earnestly plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to consider most carefully all that I have said and the words of those who follow me before reaching any conclusions on these difficult and important issues. I thank him for the time and energy that I know he has already devoted to them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I make a plea for relatively short speeches.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for requesting, and securing, a debate.
I do not want the debate to sound like a mutual support society, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for all that he has done and for the clear way in which he made the case. Colleagues on the Opposition Benches have been equally clear and supportive in arguing not from rhetoric or from general proposition but about the case.
I know that, since the Minister took over his job, he has been diligent. He has visited the hospital; he kindly invited me to be with him. He has briefed himself about the position, and we are entirely happy that he is doing


the proper job of listening before he takes his decision. I have no criticism of him and hope that we are able to help the process.
Indeed—unusually—the process is, in that respect, working properly, in the sense that the commission carried out the public consultation, it reported, it made some recommendations, which went to region, region considered them and added some riders in its covering letter and the matter is now being debated here before a decision is taken. The process is at least being democratised at its last round.
That is very important because, as the hon. Member for Chislehurst said, and as the Minister knows well, it is not a matter of interest only to those who live and work in the neighbourhood of Guys hospital, whom I represent. It is not of interest only to those who have links with Guys, either as staff or as former staff and patients; it is of much wider interest.
I am grateful to many colleagues who are in the House now and in the other place, and to some who are not here, who have expressed their anxiety and support and kept themselves interested and briefed. There is an army of people—parliamentarians present and past, including Health Ministers from both sides of the House—who have ensured that the case for retaining a viable hospital at Guys is made. That is very important.
The public are also sure about that. One of the largest petitions ever presented to the House was delivered a few weeks ago, bearing more than I million signatures. Signatures are continuing to come in, so a supplementary presentation may have to be made to ensure that no ones signature is excluded; several hundred thousand signatures may be added by the time the Minister and the Secretary of State take a decision.
I want to discuss what appear to me to be the arguments around which the matter is now resolving. The recommendations made by the region gave five reasons for the need for change. In relation to four of them I, at least, do not dissent. It is clear that hospital doctors should work in larger teams and see more patients, that junior doctors hours of work should be reduced and that safer care should be provided. That does not mean to say that we should move immediately to large teams of doctors working in a small number of huge hospitals.
One question is whether a very large consolidated accident and emergency department—whether it be situated on the Guys or the St. Thomass site—could cope not only with patient admissions but with on-going treatment once they are transferred. The Minister is aware of evidence that suggests that existing accident and emergency units—including that at Tommys—already have difficulty coping with the number of patients who are treated there. If the department were to be doubled in size, it is at least questionable whether it would be able to cope with the demand.
There is no theoretical accuracy about the correct size for a hospital. There are trends and movements in particular directions, but the advice changes from decade to decade. We thought that cottage hospitals should be abolished 20 years ago, so we moved to more acute care-centred hospitals. We are now returning to the development of community care beds for small operations. We must not believe that medical science and its management is written in stone for generations to come.
We must, of course, take account of the fact that advances in medical treatment and technology are changing the way in which hospitals work. I underline the point that the hon. Member for Chislehurst made in that regard. It seems to most people, and certainly to the individuals and charities who donated the money, nonsense to develop a state-of-the-art building in the national health service in a wonderfully accessible location and then either not use it, or not use most of it, for the purpose for which it was specifically built.
As I was going through my papers last night, I came across the leaflet that I was given when I attended the topping-out ceremony at Philip Harris house in July 1981, which features various photographs with quotes underneath. Under a photograph of the Prime Minister, it says:
I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate all those involved in this exciting venture at Guys Hospital. Philip Harris House will be a significant addition to the already high standard of services available at Guys and in the National Health Service generally.
I send my best wishes to Guys Hospital and especially to all those who will be treated and will work in Philip Harris House.
I say amen to that.
I hope that many people will be treated and will work at Philip Harris house. I know that most people think that the £154 million—£25 million of which was charitably raised, apart from the money from special trustees—was committed to that concept and to performing that task. Regardless of the other decisions involved, I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to confirm that Philip Harris house will be a fixed point for both out-patient care—it is very close to London Bridge station—and the specialist care for which it was designed.
This is the logical place to make the further point to which the hon. Member for Chislehurst referred briefly and upon which I shall elaborate. One of the difficulties involved with the decision-making process—having followed the process from the beginning, I entirely understand that difficulty—is that the facts, figures and evidence keep changing. Whatever we think about the Tomlinson report and the way in which Tomlinson arrived at his findings, it is beyond dispute that more statistics and different facts have come to light since the compilation of that report. It is beyond dispute that the evidence in favour of retaining the accident and emergency department at Guys hospital has changed too. It has been sufficiently persuasive to convince the commission that it would be impossible to go ahead with the original plan to run down the service from next year.
Two very significant further late changes have occurred which have not been the subject either of consultation or of detailed deliberation by the commission or the region in addition to all the evidence about accident and emergency patterns of referral. First, the balance of argument appears to be changing in the continuing debate about neuroscience and neurosurgery. I attended the regional health authority meeting, at which I detected that its members understood that circumstances were changing almost literally before their eyes.
Secondly, there is also a hugely important variation in the plans of Kings college London and the medical and dental school. For those who have not followed all the debate, the whole exercise was concocted to try to work out a way of reconciling the academic and research interests of the United medical and dental school—which is in the process


of amalgamating with the Kings College medical and dental school if this gains assent—and consolidating various departments from Kings college London. No one has opposed consolidating those departments, but I understand that Kings college has now said that it does not need as much space as it originally thought.
New Guys house, one of the new buildings, and Guys tower, another of the new buildings, together with Philip Harris house, make up the triangle of post-war redevelopment of the site. When Philip Harris house opens this year, the older buildings—such as Hunts house, which no one wants to occupy—can be demolished. If there is a different space requirement for the academic component, some people will have to decide how to use that space in an integrated way before we reach decisions about the rest of the space. The hon. Member for Chislehurst made the point, and I emphasise it, that it is no use arguing in favour of spending £54 million on new building works or on extensive rebuilding when space for the health service is now available because it is not needed for academic use.
I urge the Minister to conclude that, in relation to buildings and capital and plant investment, it is logical to use the newest building, Philip Harris house, and its linked buildings, Guys tower and the new Guys house, not just for out-patient care or for non-urgent admissions from the local community but as back-up, which will be needed if the provision of elective beds and specialist services is to be safe. Thereafter, Ministers must decide the difficult question of which specialties will be located on which site.
The Government must confirm the maximum amount of money that is available. The commission has asked for more money and it is absolutely clear that the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area needs more funding for health care. The Government must agree whether the commissions requested parameters are appropriate and whether the budget total is correct. Having done that, Government should be able to allow the commission and the trust to work out the best disposition of services.
Ministers do not have to worry about the detail of the arrangements; that should not be a matter for central Government. It should be negotiated by the local trust, which was set up by the Government, and by the local commission. The Government should take the strategic decisions, and I think that there are only one or two key strategic questions which Ministers must resolve.
The first question is whether the accident and emergency unit should be approved for closure not before 31 December 1998; and, secondly, how to use the main buildings, including those that will become available. The right decision would ensure that the beds and specialties appropriate to Guys could be consolidated on one site without duplication, while the others appropriate to St. Thomass would be located there. That must be achieved in a cost-effective manner; I am not arguing that we should waste any money at all.
There is a critical point at which a hospital becomes viable or non-viable. The key to its success is the retention of a casualty department and of a significant number of beds for specialty treatment. There is a postscript to that: if a hospital is to be a major teaching and research centre, it is nonsense not to have people treated on the same site as the students and their teachers are located so that students can have the benefit of practical as well as theoretical teaching.
I conclude with two requests to the Minister and a short final point. I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Chislehurst, but I shall put it slightly differently. If the Government were to follow the recommendation of the commission and say that it is necessary to make the strategic decision now that the accident and emergency department at Guys will close no earlier than 1999, that would be the worst of all possible worlds. Nobody believes that it is possible to close it now. Neither the commission nor the region has argued that it is possible.
It may be possible in some years to come, however, to have fewer accident and emergency departments in south-east London, in south London and in London as a whole. I accept that the trend may be in that direction, but if we are to look after people, treat them properly and prevent them from dying, it is absolutely vital that we do not risk their lives and treatment by closing the hospital too early or, equally bad, by announcing now that we can be certain that we will not need the hospital in four or five years time.
Perhaps it is a little mischievous, but I hope it is an accurate parallel to say that, if the Prime Minister and his Ministers say that it is impossible to judge now whether we should join the common European currency in some years time because the circumstances of the late 1990s or the next decade are not predictable, it is equally impossible to argue that we will or will not need an accident or emergency department at Guys hospital in 1999 or the year 2000, because we do not have enough certain clues about what the demand or pattern of referral will be. We do not know what the implications of the closure of Barts or what the pattern of referral around London will be. In any event, in recent years the number of people being referred has gone up, not down.
I ask the Government: please do not make a decision that will produce four, five or six years of blight when it might have to be further revised. Once such a decision has been made, we cannot expect staff morale or requirement to be sustained.
Secondly, it is important to achieve the best possible use of physical resources and consider whether there is a case for a second phase review—in 1998 or later. When the developments at Kings, Tommys, Lewisham and the Queen Elizabeth hospital, among others, have been completed, let us examine the position again. Of course health provision should always be under review, but we should also always ensure that the buildings used for in-patient care have the most clinically coherent patterns of use.
I am not an expert—there are plenty of experts in both hospitals and in other places. The present muddle is based on two simple historical facts. First, it is a difficult set of decisions to make and, secondly—the Minister knows this—the process from the beginning has not been managed in a way that has carried the confidence of those working on both sites. That is a prerequisite to the satisfactory delivery of a solution.
I believe that there is sufficient good will in the staff of Guys and Thomass, in the commission and in local communities to consolidate a sensible pattern of health care delivery over the next four or five years, developing primary care and transferring resources without putting people at risk.
The postscript is this: a paper presented to the commission made it clear that the current proposals actually risked making the health care of people in my part of the world worse. The House should not be asking


or allowing the Minister to go ahead with any decision that makes the health care of any part of our community worse, even in the short or medium-term in terms of risk, access or availability.
We have here a golden opportunity for a brilliant development with the best buildings and treatment in the world. It is an opportunity for Ministers to make a bold decision. I hope they do not make a decision that closes down services that not only we may need for many years to come, but also which, once closed, can never be reopened.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: I shall speak briefly and with an eye on the clock as I know that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. That does not mean that I do not regard the subject as extremely important. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on their contributions to the debate, and I appreciate the difficulties that face the Minister.
One of the things that I have noticed since I have been in Parliament is that British bureaucracy—certainly in our parliamentary procedures—collects together information, reaches decisions and policies and then, when the information changes, finds it almost impossible to change those policies. I suggest to the Minister that that is exactly what is happening over Guys. Practically all the information on which the original decisions were made has now turned out to be either faulty or irrelevant. From the size of the petition and the tremendously effective campaign to save Guys hospital, there is no doubt about the strength of the anxiety about what is happening.
I would like to put four points to the Minister. First, it seems that there has been no consideration of the international implications of what is happening to Guys hospital. We have very few truly international hospitals in Britain and Guys hospital is one of them. Its standing was certainly, until recently, equal to that of the Johns Hopkins in the United States. International status brings a large number of indirect rewards to Britain in terms of clinical excellence and exchanges of procedures and ideas. It is difficult to measure, but it is very real.
In that context, Guys hospital is not only a London hospital; it is certainly not a community hospital. It is a national hospital as well as being international. We would be taking a very sad step in Britain and in Parliament if we were to discount those aspects of what has gone on at Guys.

Sir John Gorst: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, because it is an international hospital, perhaps it would be possible to fund the hospital partly by charging international patients making use of its facilities?

Sir Gerard Vaughan: I do not think that the Government have seriously considered that possibility. I raised the international aspect because I did not think that the Government had considered it.
Secondly, it has been mentioned that there has been huge investment in the hospital very recently and it would be scandalous to throw that away.
Thirdly, there is also the problem of transferring clinical teams. People who have not worked in a hospital environment probably do not understand—we have had a number of examples in other parts of London—that clinical teams are built up over many years. Not just the surgeon and the theatre nurses, but all the back-up staff have to be trained, including those in the radiology and pathology departments. We have had disastrous examples of trying to transfer specialist teams to other hospitals. It is not possible to pick them up like the pieces on the chessboard and shift them around without examining the chessboard and trying to retain it. My hon. Friend the Minister may not have taken that into consideration.
Reference has already been made to population. We have a huge development in the channel tunnel. As a result of that, the use of Waterloo station and the surrounding area—and therefore St. Thomass hospital—is likely to change radically, but even more so, we know that the use of London Bridge and north Kent will change radically with the development of the London-north Kent links with the new channel rail. That has not been taken into consideration—and, indeed, as has been said, how can we forecast the population changes that may take place in the next few years?
Serious criticisms are being made about the trust. I am not in a position to know whether they are valid, but it worries me to hear that the trust is out of touch, complacent and not receptive to other points of view because it is so certain that it is right. I do not want to do the chief executive an injustice, but at a meeting that I attended the other day he did not seem to understand what modern patient care and clinical services were really about. Admittedly, he has many other issues to consider.
If my hon. Friend the Minister is informed of changes, he should have the courage—I know that he is a man of courage—to take them into account, and re-examine the proposals for one of our greatest international hospitals—indeed, I would suggest, the greatest.

Ms Tessa Jowell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on securing an important debate at a critical stage, when the future of Guys is being decided. I also pay tribute to the efforts of the Save Guys campaign, a remarkably widespread campaign which has brought together representatives of the local community—through the SICK campaign—hospital trade unions, consultants and patients. As has already been pointed out, its cross-party co-chairing means that it is not a political organisation. It has brought together hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country, who signed one of the largest petitions ever received by Parliament and who are united in their appreciation of the history of Guys and their determination to ensure its survival.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, recently visited the hospital, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and I did so last week. We were able to see the new developments at Philip Harris house at first hand, and to discuss the position with the Save Guys campaign.
Since the original announcement on 10 February last year that Guys was to be run down, the campaign to save it has progressed by small steps. I pay tribute to the


diligence with which the health authority conducted its consultations: that demonstrated its determination to secure the views of local people and organisations. We in the Save Guys campaign were not satisfied that its recommendations went far enough, but even the health commission—which had been given a job to do—had to be persuaded, at the many local meetings that it organised, by overwhelming evidence of the backing for the hospital. It was also persuaded by submissions that it received: I believe that only 23 out of many thousands supported the proposals to run down the hospital.
Let me stress—as other hon. Members have—just what saving Guys means. It means lifting the date for the closure of the accident and emergency unit, and commissioning and putting into use state-of-the-art facilities that hon. Members have already described in detail at Philip Harris house. That should be done now, not immediately prior to closure. It also means maintaining the capacity of a district general hospital, available to serve whatever needs the local population may have. The hospital must have the necessary support to back up its accident and emergency unit and intensive care services. That is what it will take to ensure the survival of a thriving hospital.
As others have made clear, no one is suggesting that the future of Guys, or indeed any other hospital, should be set in stone. Of course the provision of services must reflect changes in the local community and medical advance; apprehension about the proposals is caused by the fact that they are based on belief rather than proven fact about the effectiveness of the alternatives. The work load of the accident and emergency unit has been greatly increased as a result of the closure of the A and E unit at Barts: fairly minor injuries have already had to be referred to Guys because they were not within the scope of the minor injuries unit at Barts.
Recent work by the Kings Fund suggests that there is no evidence that investment in primary care in south-east London has begun to yield any measurable improvement—any reduction in the number of single-handed practices, and access to a wider range of professionals beyond general practitioners. We want alternatives to be put in place, and their effectiveness clearly established, before the future of Guys is put at risk. That is a simple demand, but if the Minister responds to it we shall have proof that he has listened to the many recommendations made, not just in south-east London, but by hon. Members throughout the country.

Mr. James Couchman: Like other hon. Members, I shall be brief. I congratulate both my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who spoke very sensibly about a sensitive issue.
I admit to being un undying fan of Guys hospital, not least because my wife—who was extremely ill five years ago with two episodes of cancer—was so well treated in what is undoubtedly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) has said—a world centre of excellence. It would be a great shame if Guys hospital died by a process of attrition and blight. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that the decision to close the hospitals accident and

emergency department would be premature, although there may ultimately have to be a concentration of AED services in south-east London.
I have been involved in health service management since 1974, first as a member of Greenwich and Bexley area health authority, then as chairman of Bexley health authority. During the time that I served them, I bemoaned salami slicing by South-East Thames regional health authority, to concentrate resources on the three big inner-city hospitals—Kings, St. Thomass and Guys. I argued with successive Secretaries of State and Ministers of State for rationalisation, if services in the outer-London ring and beyond were to develop in a way that was fair and proper to its population. I am grateful to Ministers for listening and for voting a £45 million redevelopment of services on the Medway hospital site in Gillingham.
That hospital currently has associate university status with St. Thomass because there are not enough patients at the latter hospital with day-to-day, secondary care illnesses for medical students to gain experience. At any one time on the Medway site, some 40 medical students are gaining clinical experience and training, drawing on a substantial population 35 miles from central London.
The decision in February 1994 to concentrate clinical facilities on the St. Thomass site staggered me. Some facilities at Guys are dreadful. Its out-patients department must be one of the worst, but to abandon the facilities in New Guys house, the tower and Philip Harris house—which I have yet to see—would be a crying shame and would call into question the judgment used. Hunts house, which is dreadful and should be knocked down, could provide a site for additional clinical facilities. I have always wondered how one could concentrate all clinical facilities from the two hospitals on a congested site across the river at St. Thomass, with the problems associated with listed buildings—I believe that they are referred to as the Nightingale blocks—and finding suitable space to develop new facilities to replace those at Guys.
I congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on initiating this debate. I hope that the cry from outer London and from out of London—access to Guys from Kent is vastly superior to access to the Waterloo station area—will be heard. There should be a complete review of the decision to run down Guys in favour of concentrating clinical services at St. Thomass.

Ms Harriet Harman: I join in the thanks expressed by other hon. Members to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for instigating this debate. I fully support the comments by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell). The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) spoke not only of the needs of his constituents, but of the treatment received at Guys by a member of his family. I have had good experiences of treatment at Guys—my three children were born there. The out-patient department may be in lousy buildings, but one receives first-class treatment, in which one can have complete confidence. The same is true of Guys accident and emergency department.
A storm of anger and fear was created by the Secretary of States proposals to close Guys. The Save Guys campaign has done a great job, but no campaign can go anywhere unless it strikes a chord with the public. There


is huge public concern locally, regionally and nationally. In my constituency, people have queued in the rain in shopping centres to sign the petition to save Guys because many of them—like me and the hon. Member for Gillingham—are grateful for the treatment that they received at the hospital, and want it to remain in existence. Also, the public are fearful of what will happen if its services are no longer available. My constituents feel anger at the Governments action in threatening that important hospital and fear the consequences if the Government blunder on in the way they have.
There are three large teaching hospitals in south-east London—Kings, St. Thomass and Guys. That may seem a lot, but still people have to queue for beds for non-emergency in-patient treatment. Patients are still told, We had not planned to discharge you until tomorrow but do you mind going now? In fact, right away—someone downstairs is waiting for your bed. Patients get the feeling that they are being discharged before doctors and nurses think that they are ready to leave, just because there is pressure on the availability of beds.
There are also queues in accident and emergency departments. I have referred to the health service ombudsman numerous cases of people who were left on trolleys waiting to be seen. Despite that pressure on facilities, the Government are saying that they want to close one of those three hospitals.
Guys provides much-needed local services to my constituents, a high proportion of whom are unemployed, or on low pay or live in poverty. First-class, high-quality in-patient services are a way of redressing deprivation in inner-city areas. Nothing should be taken away that would multiply the disadvantages and deprivation that are concentrated there.
My constituents and I also recognise that Guys has never been just a local facility but a regional and national centre of excellence. The public vote with their feet. If one asks a mum or dad sitting by a child's bed in Guys where they come from, they may say Canterbury or Maidstone, but they might come from Brighton—referred by their local hospital because it wants to see whether more progress can be made by sending its patient to Guy's. To tell the public that they cannot receive the excellent specialised services available at Guys is dramatically and wrongly to put the cart before the horse.
My constituents also value Guys because they do not have to travel far if something is badly wrong with them. At present, access to regional services and national specialties are on their doorstep. We value the fact that these local, regional and national services are offered by Guys hospital.
Teaching and research are also important. My constituents know, when they go to Guys, that they are at the leading edge of the science of medicine. Even though they may be unemployed people or single parents from council estates, they know that they are getting internationally recognised first-rate services, and they value that enormously. They do not want the Government to mess it up or take it away.
Why are the Government doing this? There is no consensus that it is being done to improve services—the Government have not made the case for that. The amount of money that may be saved is also highly dubious. In 1991 I attended the topping-out ceremony at Philip Harris house.

The champagne corks were popping; people said that I was guilty of sour grapes and asked why I was always so gloomy and negative. This was just at the time when the idea of the internal market was being developed. I suggested that the building might look more like an office block when all was said and done. The harbingers of the problems to do with the internal market were already present, even as people were celebrating the topping out of Philip Harris house. It is a scandalous waste of resources—the very opposite of good planning—that the house, with its intensive care unit, should not be used.
Ronald McDonald house has pioneered opportunities for families of children who are acutely ill to stay near them while they undergo long treatment. Anyone who has been to McDonalds for a hamburger and put money into the collection for Ronald McDonald house will be scandalised if the nearby hospital disappears. That is an abdication of all good planning principles.
Charitable money was also raised for Philip Harris house, and charities have often pitched in to help to build the infrastructure that is needed.
The case has not been made, either, for saying that there are too many beds in south-east London. The information to that effect put out by the Government never chimed with peoples experience. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich on the Health Select Committee; she tabled a great many parliamentary questions, the answers to which revealed that it was not sound to allege that there were too many beds in London. Peoples personal experience of the shortage of beds is truer than the Governments inaccurate figures.
One argument says that, when the GP services become truly wonderful, there will be less use of accident and emergency services. I know from personal experience of the A and E department at Guys and at Kings that many people, had they had a first-rate GP service, would not have gone to the A and E unit. When their children are ill in the middle of the night, they know that someone from a deputising service for the group practice will come and tell them that he does not know what is wrong—You had better go to hospital. Knowing that that will happen anyway, people go straight to the hospital. It is therefore to put the cart before the horse to start talking about closing A and E departments.
Certainly, GP services are being improved—I pay tribute to that fact—but they still have a long way to go. If people lack the necessary primary care services, they still need somewhere to go. We cannot just leave them to it, saying that this use is inappropriate.
My metaphor about putting the cart before the horse also applies to community care services. Granted, there has been an effort to improve them, but it is quite wrong to suggest that we can dramatically reduce the number of beds because everything has been sorted out in primary and community care. People know that the facts are rather different.
Everyone is in favour of the sensible organisation of specialist services. We all know about scientific economies of scale—getting people together doing the same thing and seeing as many patients as possible, so that they become experts. No one is asking for the equivalent of a proliferation of cottage hospitals. We want these specialist services, and we accept that they must be organised as rationally as possible. No one wants services to be duplicated—but that is not what we suggest. We are talking about closures and cuts in bed numbers and A and E services.
I pay tribute to the staff who, over the years, have treated me and my children and helped us through child births and various childhood ailments. I also pay tribute to the staff for their work with my constituents—it is immensely valued by the people of Peckham. The staffs morale is still high; despite all the to-ings and fro-ings of the Government, they continue to keep their services going and to keep pushing ahead. It is extraordinary, given what the Government have been doing, that they can still recruit people and push back the frontiers of medicine.
I ask the Minister to tell the Secretary of State not to let down my constituents or the people who work in Guys. He must not let down the people of Southwark, or the people in the region who use the hospital, or the people all over the country who need Guys specialties. The Secretary of State must recognise that it has been a chronic and gross error to suggest the closure of Guys. The Secretary of State has got it wrong and must think again.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I offer a warm vote of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and his colleagues in the Save Guys campaign. I am especially grateful to him for allowing me a few moments to speak this morning. These debates are hard won, and many people want to speak about Guys hospital.
I speak as a parent of a boy patient who has been at the plastic surgery unit since 1991. I brought Amar to the United Kingdom as a guest visitor, and he had 45 per cent. third degree burns. We ran a public appeal to raise money for him and to get surgery offered free or at low cost. Hospitals around the world came forward—in Scandinavia, the USA, Germany and all over the United Kingdom. Why did we choose Guys hospital? Only Guys was able to give me costs and budgets. I learned then that it was the flagship of the Governments most crucial and necessary health reforms.
Sir Philip Harris, chairman, who later gave so much money for the house named after him, explained to me what the hospital could and could not do. Most important of all, the plastic surgery team, comprising Tony Rowsell, John Clark and David Gateby, came forward. With proper costings and budgets, and with some money given by the British public, I used their services.
I became very familiar with the Rothschild children's ward—the long, weary hours watching dying babies, their parents, and the pain of so many people. I watched the mothers smoking all night, waiting and sleeping there. I saw the borrowing of beds and watched the play leaders and the nurses with their tender loving care. There is a classroom at the end of the ward, and visiting hours are critical. In some strange way, all roads and railway lines seem to lead to Guys hospital. I became very conscious of the gratitude that all who use Guy's services feel—gratitude so profound that it is almost inexpressible.
I and other colleagues have also been involved with another case at the hospital. I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Romanian children; to my fellow trustee, the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell); to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), a committee member; and to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
Guys has been treating a boy called Adrian Vlad, who is doubly incontinent and has suffered from that impossible condition since birth. Twenty operations in Romania had significantly worsened his condition. The stench that he brought with him was unbearable. Surgeons at Guy's gave him a 10-hour operation, which was followed up by the home care of Tony Rowsell and his wife. The boys life has been transformed.
Guys is a specialist hospital, one that happens to be located in south London, and twinned—through its geography, I suggest—with St. Thomass, under a single trust. Therein lies its misfortune, because Guys specialism, as I perceive it, has naturally grown up alongside the provision of a substantial local medical service, the volume and excellence of which seem to have dominated the necessary and present arguments on the proper place of costs and benefits of the provision of primary health care to the local community.
Of course the Government are right to do all within their powers, which in this instance are not just considerable but near total, to persuade the population, not just in south London but throughout the United Kingdom, to transfer to GP surgeries their significant overuse of A and E facilities for minor medical matters that are really of the preventive and GP-curable kind. Indeed, in Exeter recently, during a bank holiday, I saw that more than half the cases in A and E could have been given to the GP the following morning. Perhaps we are dealing with an accident of patient judgment in self-assessment. Can it wait until tomorrow? Can I see my own doctor? That seems to be commonplace. Or perhaps in the United Kingdom we take our professional medical practitioner services too much for granted.
Be that as it may, the A and E figures throughout London are rising fast, and Guy's is no exception. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his decision to extend A and E provision for Guy's for a few more years while proper, modern GP health clinics can be constructed. That clears the air to show the real uniqueness of Guy's, which must not be destroyed if we wish Britain to be a world-class force and a leader in medical work.
The reputations that I have found Guys to enjoy internationally, in any walk of professional life, take many generations to earn. It has taken decades of high-quality training and work to have achieved that high position, and Guy's specialists are renowned everywhere. It was both my parental and international experience of Guy's excellence that made me turn to the Minister with my evidence. I thank him most warmly for listening. It is clear that he already possesses the sagacity of Minerva.
I now call on him to display the wisdom of Solomon and cut the trust of Guy's and St. Thomass hospital in half. He is not faced with one baby, one mother and one umbilical chord, but surely with Siamese twins, who are pulling apart and perhaps would work best separately. I believe that they are in drastic need of surgery by the Ministers own legislative hand. I call on him to make Guys hospital an independent trust and to let it assume the excellence of specialism worldwide that it alone can provide.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate,


because the future of Guy's is inexorably part of the future of the hospital system for the whole of London, and that is of great concern to my constituents.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look closely at the new evidence that is available, especially on A and E provision across London, where there are problems, and also at the quite strong argument for maintaining a future for Philip Harris house. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) will excuse me if I take a slightly different perspective from his, although I pay warm tribute to him for his work as part of the Save Guys campaign. I listened carefully to his speech this morning. I have read the literature that he sent me and congratulate him on winning the ballot for the debate today.
I have no negative feelings about Guy's and I accept that strong arguments were made by the campaign group. The quality of care at Guy's is excellent and it has a tremendous history, but I do not necessarily accept two of the important premises—at least made by some—of the argument: first, that somehow the future of Guy's can be judged in isolation, that it is of merit in itself and whatever happens will not affect other hospitals and other health care in London.
That is not correct. It will do so, because resources are necessarily, and always will be, limited, and the patterns of demand elsewhere will be affected by what is available at Guys. There is a desperate need for resources to be focused into local areas in London, particularly in outer London, where they are deficient, and I would not want to see that in any way prejudiced by decisions being made on the future of hospitals in London. Resources have been retained in the centre of the capital, when there should be a reallocation to the outer boroughs.
Secondly, I do not accept that Guys necessarily has the best access. Of course transport facilities there are excellent, but many of my constituents find it just as easy, if not easier, to get to St. Thomass. The link between Beckenham Junction, the main station in the centre of my constituency, and Victoria is considerably better than the link between stations in my constituency and London Bridge. People can get as quickly, if not more quickly, to St. Thomass, and with equal ease.
It is important that that is considered in the argument. My constituents want—it is their greatest concern—better local facilities. They want to see a greater emphasis on primary care, particularly fundholding GP practices. The £210 million that will be made available in the current three-year period to expand primary care is an absolute priority. I pay tribute to the GPs in my constituency who have been able greatly to expand their provision, particularly Dr. Kenneth Scott, who is a leader in this area and who happens to be retiring this Friday.
My constituents also want a greater emphasis on local, diagnostic, small injuries and consultancy facilities, which can be done at local hospitals. They want to see more investment in a district general hospital, and better A and E facilities in the borough of Bromley, which is where they live and where the greatest demand is. Of course there is a role for centres of excellence and a need for proper A and E provision in the centre of London, where some of my constituents work, but the emphasis must be on reallocating priorities to where the population is principally resident, and that is in outer London.
No action is no option. There has been, and still is, an over-concentration on hospital facilities in central London. It is time to get the balance right. It is time to have better provision in outer London, and to an extent that means at the expense of inner London. I accept that. Unfortunately, it is not possible to please everybody all the time and some difficult decisions have to be made.
The worst of all options is to delay further. We have grappled with the problem long enough. We have seen enough uncertainty. We have seen too many suggestions put up only to be pulled down. We now need to see final decisions so that we can get on with the, perhaps difficult, period of adjustment to the new reality, and with providing the best standard of health care for all the people of London.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) and, as so often in the past, to disagree mildly with him, and to add to the advice that has been given to the Minister.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), not just on securing todays debate but on achieving the tremendous feat of uniting the House behind the case that he is making. I pay tribute to him, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) for their work on the Save Guys campaign. As well as visiting Guys hospital, I have met the campaign team in the House of Commons. I find its case overwhelmingly persuasive. I pay tribute to everybody who is involved in the campaign.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst set his remarks, rightly, in the context of the Tomlinson report, and said, as did many other hon. Members, not least my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and for Peckham (Ms Harman), that it is flawed. The more we examine these matters, the more flawed it seems to be.
Tomlinson was based on the assumption that London is over-bedded. The recent work of Professor Brian Jarman, and the points teased out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich through parliamentary questions, show that that is not the case.
It is claimed that London gets 20 per cent. of NHS funding for only 15 per cent. of the population. That again is a flawed assumption. The figures take into account London allowances, teaching facilities and national responsibilities rather than those that pertain specifically just to London.
It is argued that somehow the capital can perform as though it were an average English district. It cannot do that. For a variety of reasons, London is a special case. It has a large transient population, high levels of social deprivation and poverty, large ethnic minority communities, a higher than average prevalence of mental illness and lower than average provision for personal social services. All those factors require special consideration in their own contexts.
The Tomlinson report stated that increased primary care would reduce the demand for hospital services. That assumption is flawed. It is perfectly possible that increasing the provision of primary care will stimulate the demand for secondary services. That will happen as the need for new treatments are discovered by the primary carer. Tomlinson


also thought, perhaps based on flawed research, that patients from outer London do not use inner-London facilities. Recent research by the Kings Fund shows that that is also a flawed assumption, and that about 30 per cent. of patients currently using inner-London hospital facilities come from outside inner London.
Tomlinson thought that the location of casualty services was not important. That again is a flawed assumption. Clinicians speak about the golden hour during which it is important to get a person who needs intensive care to the facilities. Therefore, geography is important. I am sure that the hon. Member for Beckenham would agree with that. Although Tomlinson and the Government did not hold that view when discussing the capital in general, they seem to have taken it when discussing St. Thomass hospital and its proximity to Whitehall. The Government should not try to have it both ways, because that does not do the debate a service.
Philip Harris house is an integral part of Guys hospital and it is a modern, state of the art, national health service facility. As the hon. Member for Chislehurst said, it cost more than £150 million. Some of that money came from charitable sources. My right hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and I have visited the site. I agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) that it is interesting to see the facilities. The fact that they are not to be used for the purpose for which they were intended is mind-boggling. It is astonishing that provision for intensive care is to be ripped out and the building used for some other purpose.
I understand that, when the Ministers predecessor visited the site, he looked at the tower block and sent surveyors from the Department of Health to see whether it could be sold for development into flats. That is not a responsible way to treat NHS facilities. Such development would be an act of clinical and financial vandalism. It is inconceivable that any independent review would or could possibly endorse such a decision, and Labour is calling for an independent review. Moreover, that review must not be pre-empted by irreversible decisions to close facilities.
We ask the Minister to pause and think again. He has satirised Labours call for a review of a review but it is better to stop and think again than to proceed in the wrong direction. The Minister should think about what is happening in London and about the special case that has been made for Guys hospital, because Guys is a special case. It is not a question of setting it against St. Thomass but if, because of its proximity to Whitehall, St. Thomass is to be made a special case, that is a national issue and it should be funded as a national consideration and not placed as a burden on local health care

Ms Kate Hoey: I should not like the House to be under the illusion that the only case for St. Thomass is that it is near Whitehall. As my hon. Friend knows, about 500,000 signatures were collected some two years ago when there was a huge campaign about the importance of St. Thomass, not just as a national hospital but as one serving the local community. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean that its proximity to Whitehall was the only reason for St. Thomass being considered as a national hospital, because that is incorrect.

Mr. Brown: I was not trying to make the point that that was the only case for St. Thomass. However, when she was announcing her decisions, the Secretary of State

for Health paid particular attention to St. Thomass location. Of course there is a strong case for St. Thomass, but there is also a strong case for Guys and that case, which I endorse, has been made in the debate. I do not intend to set the debate in the adversarial context of Guys versus St. Thomass.
As I have said, the case for Guys is overwhelmingly persuasive, and it rests not just on the superb facilities, the renowned history of the hospital and the major development programme that the Minister seems prepared to abandon. Its compact layout makes it an ideal modern hospital, and the building stock is good. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) about damage to the morale of staff and patients if the clinical teams are broken up and transferred elsewhere. For all those powerful reasons, I urge the Minister to think again.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): My response to the debate will certainly have a compact layout. I welcome the debate and I have listened to as many contributions as possible. They have been extremely useful. I place even more congratulations on the shoulders of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). My hon. Friend shakes his head. No doubt that is because he has had so many congratulations that he finds them overwhelming. They were offered not just on his success in the ballot but on the sensible and constructive way in which he produced his arguments and presented his case. I extend that compliment to the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Dulwich (Ms Jowell).
The arguments are in the public domain. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey rightly said, at this point in the consultation process, the matter is being debated in the House. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he and other Members sought. Of course Ministers will listen carefully to all views, including those expressed in the debate, and not just to those expressed during the consultation process.
I visited both Guys and St. Thomass before consultation commenced. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) in her place. When I visited St. Thomass, she was also there. I have taken every care to ensure that the fullest possible attention has been given to all the matters that have been raised in the debate. I shall continue to do that, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will look carefully at what has been said in the debate before making final decisions.
I have a number of points about the overall aim of our health policies in London. Basically, they are to improve the quality of patient services and the health of Londoners. In particular, they aim to improve family doctor and other community health services so that Londoners may enjoy the access, level of provision and standards of excellence that are common elsewhere.
They will enable hospitals to respond to the changing demands of an aging and shifting population and to the rising expectation and medical advances that we all know. They also aim to preserve and enhance London's international reputation, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) spoke, for treatment teaching and research by concentrating facilities


into high quality centres. I assure the hon. Member for Dulwich that we shall ensure that changes to hospitals are paced alongside improvements in primary care, so that patients will continue to receive the services they need.
I welcome the fact that the process of public consultation has been soundly endorsed in the debate by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I welcome the contributions that he and his colleagues in the Save Guys campaign made to the process. Ministers are concerned that all views will be taken into account before any final decision is made.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the proposals. It would not be proper or appropriate for me to comment today, but I want to emphasise that the proper amount of time is being taken to deal with all the issues before any firm conclusion is reached. The decisions made will be in the best interests of all concerned. Those decisions are hard, difficult, complex and far reaching. Many interests are involved, but decisions must be made and they will not be fudged or shirked.
I welcome the debate as a further opportunity at a vital time to hear and to take note of the views of hon. Members and of all the people whom they represent. Those views will be laid before my right hon. Friend when she finally considers the proposals for change. I know that she will consider—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

West Coast Main Line

1 pm

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The west coast main line is Britain's busiest railway. It serves a population of 16 million, in 16 counties or regions. More than 2,000 trains a day pass over its tracks. It is therefore of immense social and economic importance, yet it has been grossly neglected in the past 15 years.
It was originally built in the 1830s and 1840s, and it was the first inter-city railway in the world. In the first half of the century, some parts of the line were widened to four tracks, and the line was electrified between 1955 and 1975, but we are now in 1995, and virtually nothing has changed in the past 20 years.
The rolling stock is not of a modern standard. For some years, we who travel on the west coast main line have thought enviously of the east coast main line. We especially think about that when we listen to the all too frequent announcements about the breakdown of the locomotive pulling the train in front of ours, and about the fact that overhead lines are down in the Rugby area. That gives us quite a few opportunities to think enviously of the east coast line.
Our hopes were raised a year or so ago, but, with the exercise of their remarkable logic, the Government decided that the west coast main line should be put into competition with the equally necessary Networker trains for the south-east. For reasons that we can only guess at, the south-east was declared the winner.
In November 1994, the then new Secretary of State for Transport published a glossy brochure called Building Tomorrows Transport Network, which mentioned the west coast main line. It said:
The intention is to launch a competition in early 1995 for the design and build, and to let a contract in mid-1995, for work to start as soon as possible after that.
In the summary published on 22 March, we at last had some firm recommendations, but, in the past four months, the time scale for starting any work has slipped at least a year. Page 55 talks about
the award of contracts for the implementation of the modernisation of the west coast main line in 1996.
We are being offered some, but by no means all, of what is needed. The recommendation is for what is called a core investment programme. That programme is essentially for an advanced train control and signalling system, combined with track renewal to maintain, or possibly to improve, its condition, and some enhancement of power supply, giving improved capacity, safety and reliability. It is therefore to be welcomed, but it is not sufficient. Further changes should be made. They have been identified, but they are to be regarded as optional add-ons, which may or may not happen.
The feasibility study includes the recommended core investment programme and a range of other things, which are displayed, as it were, in a shop window, to be picked up or not by franchisees. One is new advanced rolling stock—trains—which is crucial for passengers.
Another is the capacity to piggy-back freight containers—to take standard size road trailers and lift them on to modified wagons on the railway. That provides the opportunity for a truly integrated freight transport system, giving the advantages of the road when its use is


essential, but allowing full use of the railway for the larger part of journeys, with the massive environmental gains and great benefit to road users that that brings.
The published feasibility study gives little weight to the economic impact of full-scale modernisation of the west coast main line. It devotes little more than a page to it. In contrast, local authorities such as my own in Lancashire are well seized of the lines economic importance both directly, in transport terms, and in terms of jobs generated in undertaking the work.
One of the major worries of all of us who want a thoroughly upgraded service involves the question, Where will the money come from? The Government appear to have washed their hands of real responsibility in the matter. Railtrack says that it can find the £1 billion needed for the core investment programme between 1996 and 2004. That is a long time scale. I appreciate the technical and logistical constraints, but will the Minister assure me that financial constraints will not be allowed to lengthen the work further, and that that is the shortest time scale that is technically possible? Is it already influenced by cash constraints?
One of the Governments initial papers on privatising the rail network, called New Opportunities for the Railways, stated in paragraph 43 that the Government are
ready to provide direct support for investment in the railway, for schemes which, although not earning an adequate financial return, provide a satisfactory cost-benefit return when wider benefits are taken into account.
The channel tunnel main line project will benefit from capitalised payments of £1 billion in recognition of the benefits arising from its handling of Kent commuter traffic, so clearly the Government are putting some flesh on their promise in New Opportunities for the Railways. That was a belated, but welcome, recognition on the Governments part that the public sector should contribute to the provision of either new or upgraded railways. Will the Minister, in the same spirit, please explain how he proposes to ensure that an appropriate contribution is made to the west coast main line?
Railtrack is implicitly treated as though it were already privatised. Further fragmentation will take place when the franchises come into being. The Government are effectively washing their hands of their financial responsibility. Talking of finance prompts me to hope that increased fares will not be extracted from passengers who are now paying high fares for what is often a substandard service.
In any case, however, complex arrangements must be made to give Railtrack extra resources via the franchisees, assuming that more revenue is generated not from higher charges but from increased usage. In the feasibility study, Railtrack points out that those resources must, somehow, be conveyed from the franchisees, who will be the immediate beneficiaries, to Railtrack, which will bear a great deal of the cost. The Government are fragmenting the railway system, and the fragments will have to find complicated ways to recombine, which serves merely to illustrate the fact that the railway service should be unified. We have all heard the comments made in the past few days by Sir Bob Reid, who can claim some expertise in these matters.
One of the problems is that the Government are not giving sufficient weight to the economic importance of the west coast main line or to the beneficial environmental impact of attracting more passengers and freight on to the

railways. When those factors are taken into account and given due weight, it becomes clear that there needs to be public sector involvement. It is all very well to involve private sector finance—we are not in any way opposed to that—but if we depend on it entirely, we shall run into trouble and experience further delays.
Some of the leases on the current rolling stock do not finish until the year 2002. There is no guarantee that the new franchisees will be willing to accept the financial burden necessary to provide us with advanced trains. What is the Governments answer to these problems? So far, I have detected only a pretty deafening silence, which is not satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will answer my specific questions.
Are the Government committed to a piggy-back service to facilitate upgraded freight transport? If they are not, the Minister will have to explain to the nation why the Government are so careless of the environmental damage done to the planet as a whole, and to the roads in particular, by the excessive carriage of freight on the roads, especially when it could very conveniently be carried by rail if the west coast main line were improved.
What is the Minister going to do about injecting public sector finance into the railways as an acknowledgement of the important economic and environmental impact of a proper upgrading? What will he do to prevent the fragments from causing complete financial and technical chaos on the west coast main line? There are 16 million people in 16 regions along the line, which passes through many marginal seats, something that it is perhaps worth mentioning at this stage in the parliamentary cycle. What has the Minister to say to reassure all of us?

Mr. Henry McLeish: I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) about this important project. I wish to register the Labour party's concern about the fact that the Government are dragging their feet on a vital investment project for the next century.
Let us set the west coast main line in context. No one should doubt that it is an essential part of the national rail network, but it is also critical for regional development. It is an arterial spine of the railway system, and it must be renewed and refurbished. The next century is only five years away, but the refurbishment has not yet been started.
The line is also a vital link to Europe. In Committee earlier today, some of us were discussing the interoperability of trains in Europe. It is hoped that improvement of the west coast main line will not only improve services in Britain but provide a vital link to London through the tunnel and into Europe.
The line is also important as a symbol of what needs to be done in this country. We need to invest, to make the economy a priority and to ensure that passenger services are as good as they can be. For those reasons, the Minister must show some urgency in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston.
I fear that the west coast main line project faces real problems, two of which are the lack of a real and effective timetable and the lack of effective funding. Much has been said about the private sector—we want to encourage private finance in all sectors of the economy—but, to coin a phrase, Wheres the beef? How long do we have to


wait before we see the colour of the money? How long before we have a timetable showing the start of this vital project?
In addition to those considerations, privatisation is creating uncertainty. It has been a shambles. Uncertainty has made the private sector sceptical and suspicious of a Government who have apparently taken leave of their senses and who appear to lack commitment and enthusiasm for such an important project. The dumping of privatisation would allow the nation to return to the key issues of investment, jobs and passenger services instead of focusing on the nonsense indulged in day after day.
As my hon. Friend asked, where is the cash to come from? Will the scheme mean a dramatic rise in fares for those who use the refurbished parts of the route under the jurisdiction of Railtrack? Have the technical problems been solved?
We want to spend £1 billion on a much-needed refurbishment project, but we also want to franchise the west coast main line at the same time, and Railtrack is dividing the zone covering the line into two. I can hardly think of words to describe that, apart from crazy or mad. The net effect will be to delay the project even longer, to the disadvantage of the various constituencies that my hon. Friend mentioned. That cannot continue.
The nation needs to consider urgently the future of the rail network. Let the Minister say that he is pursuing the matter vigorously. I have little faith that Railtrack will deliver on this project. The chairman is far too involved in privatisation and flotation of Railtrack itself. How on earth can his mind be properly focused on the issues facing people using the west coast main line when there are so many distractions?
Railtrack has to exhibit the expertise and enthusiasm to get the project under way, but today we look to the Minister to reassure us that he shares our sense of urgency, and that he will tell Railtrack that now is the time to move the project on so that we can reap the benefits. Then, instead of regarding privatisation as the main issue, we can make investment in the future of Britain and the future of the west coast main line our priority.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I thank the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) for providing the House with an opportunity to discuss the west coast main line modernisation project, and congratulate her on her timing.
Last week, we saw what I regard as some exciting developments for the scheme, and I am glad to have an opportunity to review them before the whole House, as I did with the all-party group last week. The hon. Lady gave us the history of the line and, at one point, I thought that we might have had the same speech writer as our words were identical. In any event, I shall not repeat them.
The hon. Lady emphasised the importance of the route, which runs from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, with a further connection to Edinburgh, and the fact that it crosses 16 regions with some 16 million inhabitants. Its annual traffic is around 3 billion miles of passenger journeys, and 5.5 billion tonnes km of freight. Unfortunately, I have to use kilometres when dealing with statistics, contrary to my preferences.
The electrification of the line was completed 20 years ago, which is one reason that an upgrade is now timely, and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), the former Secretary of State, for Transport, announced in December 1993 that the modernisation of the west coast main line would be a flagship project for the private finance initiative.
In March last year, after keen competition, Railtrack let the contract for the first phase of the project. The key tasks set for that stage of the scheme were to assess the technical options for the modernisation of the line and to make recommendations on the appropriate funding and contracting strategy for the main modernisation project.
The successful consortium was the West Coast Main Line development company, a diverse group of private sector companies. The feasibility study was completed on time.

Mr. Eric Martlew: When the Minister originally announced the scheme, he said that it was to be funded by £600 million of private sector money. Will he tell us why that figure has become £1 billion, and whether it will be a mixture of private and public money?

Mr. Watts: Clearly, as the examination of the feasibility has progressed, the estimated costings have been more clearly defined and we have moved to a different cost base. There is scope for a mixture of public and private funding. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have secured the inclusion of this important project in the Christophersen group of projects of Community significance, which may be one of the sources of available funding.
As I was saying, the feasibility study was completed on time just before Christmas and delivered to the Government. The development company recommended a comprehensive modernisation of the infrastructure of the whole line, involving major work over a number of years on track, power supply and structures. The work which the consortium has carried out on the lines essential assets is important and thorough. However, the most inspirational element of its report, as well as that which will be the most complex and time-consuming to deliver, is the proposed new signalling and control system.
Railtrack and the consortium carried out a very careful assessment of existing signalling technologies, and reached the conclusion that none of them represented the way forward for the west coast main line. Instead, the consortium recommended the development of a new generation of transmission-based cab signalling and the construction of a single, integrated control centre.

Mr. Bill Olner: Will the Minister confirm that this cab control system, which he spoke about at the meeting of the all-party west coast main line group, to which he referred, has not been proven to work for passenger traffic? It has only been proven to work in north America, where trains are separated by anything up to three or four hours, and it has never been contemplated for use on a line so busy as the west coast main line.

Mr. Watts: I do not claim any great technical expertise, but my advice is that the equipment required is already in existence. What will be new is configuring it into a system to meet the needs of the west coast main line.
It is not entirely new territory. I am told that it is very similar to the control system used in the channel tunnel, for example, and it is also very much in line with the proposed technical standards for the European train control system, which is also being developed. While I would not pretend that the system is not breaking some new frontiers, I do not believe that it is beyond the ability of our industry to develop a suitable system, and it is not so ground-breaking that there are any serious doubts that it can be delivered.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not also important to recognise not only that the line has to be exclusively equipped for the new Intercity routes on the west coast main line, but that signalling will be made difficult because, on certain stretches, it will still have to be able to cope with local services?

Mr. Watts: In considering how it would be implemented, Railtrack is planning a period when there will be dual signalling techniques on the line, so that services crossing the line, which would not necessarily have the new technology, will continue to be able to operate safely. Clearly it is important that, during a major upgrade on a line which carries 2,000 trains, provisions must be made for the line to continue to operate. We cannot just close it down while work is carried out.
Indeed, one of the benefits of new technology signalling is that it is not a matter of ripping up cables and trackside signals and replacing them. The existing cables and signals can stay in place and continue operating while the cab-based system is implemented. The two will not interfere with each other.
I was very pleased last week to be able to announce that the Government have given their approval to Railtrack moving ahead as quickly as possible to award a contract to develop the system. The contract will be structured to transfer to the private sector real responsibilities associated with the delivery and performance of the technology and the financial risk associated with those responsibilities. I expect Railtrack to let that contract later this year.
With regard to timing, I would say to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that I certainly do not wish to see any dragging of feet, and nor do the Government. We look upon it as a very important project, for all the reasons that he and the hon. Member for Preston have mentioned. There is no incentive for Railtrack to go slow either, because it looks on the project as an important commercial opportunity, and it is very much in its own commercial interests to be able to offer a better service to its customers who operate passenger and freight trains on the line. There is every incentive for all the parties involved to make progress as rapidly as possible.
The key importance of the new technology is that it substantially reduces maintenance costs. From the savings which arise from ceasing to maintain an outdated technology, much of the funding for the core investment programme will be released.
As well as the core programme, the study produced by the development company also assessed a range of possible service enhancements. For passenger services, they include the possibility of higher speeds on the line, leading to substantial reductions in journey times. For freight services, the report assessed a range of enhancements, including the increased clearances which would be needed to allow piggy-back traffic. Those enhancements will be offered by Railtrack to its customers and prospective customers on a commercial basis. I am due to have a further meeting with Lord Berkeley of the piggy-back consortium in the next few weeks, so that he may update me on the development of its ideas.
On the passenger side, though, the director of passenger rail franchising will have a pivotal role in the discussions and negotiations between Railtrack and the train operating companies. The franchising director has kept very closely in touch with the progress of the study, and I know that, over recent months, he and his staff at Opraf have been consulting widely with both rolling stock manufacturers and potential franchisees.
The hon. Member for Preston asked what the funding mechanism will be. The means by which money feeds into the railway for passenger services is of course through the franchising directors budget and the agreements that he enters into with train operators. In turn, those funds feed through to Railtrack through access charges.
The mode will be that Railtrack will have the responsibility of raising money to fund capital investment. Its remuneration, as for all its activities, will be through the track access charges paid by train operators.

Mrs. Wise: Since the rail regulator some time ago announced that Railtrack access charges should be 8 per cent. lower this year than last year, and that they should fall by 2 per cent. in real terms in each of the subsequent years, how can we be sure that such a squeeze on access charges will not interfere with the funding arrangements that the Minister is now outlining, and make it impossible to get the money through to Railtrack?

Mr. Watts: In reaching his judgments on the appropriate level of access charges, the regulator will also have considered his responsibility to oversee Railtracks investment programme to ensure that it continues to have the funds needed to invest in improvements, maintain the network and produce an adequate return. He has reached the conclusion that Railtrack has considerable scope for efficiency savings, and that some of those should be passed through to train operators rather than being merely for the benefit of the shareholders of Railtrack when it enters the private sector.
There is a mechanism in place for funding to flow through and provide support for the investment proposals. I think that the hon. Lady will understand that the project is different from the channel tunnel rail link, not because of the region that it serves but because that rail link is a totally private sector project with an initial capital contribution from the Government, partly in the form—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Climate Change

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to open a debate on this subject. As the first conference of the parties to the Rio climate change convention begins its deliberations in Berlin, it has become clear that accelerating global warming, resulting from human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases, is a reality.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—IPCC—is convinced that its earlier predictions were accurate, and that, unless action is taken, mean global temperature will rise by about 3 deg by the year 2100. That calculation is based on the conservative assumption that fossil fuel burning will increase by 1 per cent. per annum over the next 50 years.
That will probably lead to a rise in sea level of about 45 cm, causing the inundation of large areas of land, including some entire island countries, with unpredictable effects on the weather and the spread of diseases, with possibly disastrous effects on agriculture and thus on the fate of entire populations, and with a catastrophic loss of species and of biodiversity.
Everyone knows that there have recently been attempts to rubbish the global warming theory, some emanating from powerful industrial vested interests. Bert Bolin, the IPCC chairman, acknowledges that there has been
an increasing polarisation of public debate,
but insists that that
is not a reflection of a similar change among experts.
It is important to emphasise that the IPCC's most recent report had 25 main authors from 11 countries, and drew on a draft text from 120 authors, whose work was reviewed by more than 230 other people from 31 countries. The global warming theory is no mere nine days wonder.
There is another kind of sceptic too. The commentator Frances Cairncross, writing in yesterdays edition of The Independent, acknowledged that global warming might be happening but suggested that the costs of action to arrest it might be greater than the benefits, so, because of the uncertainty, it would be better to delay action until the countries of the world were richer and had the resources to ameliorate its effects.
Frances Cairncross quoted the American economist William Cline, who argues:
the benefits of taking action do not overtake the costs until about 2150.
Mr. Cline is obviously into cost-benefit analysis, which is, to put it mildly, a highly suspect process that ascribes monetary values to just about everything, including human lives, in order to determine what action should or should not be taken in particular circumstances.
The IPCC itself has economists, some funded by United Kingdom public moneys, working on cost-benefit analysis in relation to global warming. In my view the work that they are doing should be profoundly questioned. Typically, they base their valuation of anything on its potential for economic production. By that methodology the Maldives, home to 177,000 people, are worth far less than, say, the City of London, and an extensive area of Bangladeshi agricultural land is worth less than a single American automobile factory.
Thus, typically, it is argued that the loss to American GDP caused by reducing automobile production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be greater than the gain in saving Bangladeshi farmland on which thousands of people depend for subsistence. In cost-benefit analysis, such conclusions are seriously defended.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Is it taken into account in cost-benefit analysis that, if most of Bangladesh is flooded, its population will presumably try to escape into neighbouring countries, and that under the pressure of that huge immigration, warfare and disruption are likely in those other countries?

Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, and I doubt whether cost-benefit analysis has the sophistication to conduct such complex modelling that goes well beyond the immediate costs. However, I am trying to show that it is a basically flawed way of approaching the subject in the first place.
Worse than what I have already said is the fact that IPCC economists are now ascribing differential monetary values to human lives—a Bangladeshi life, for example, being worth about one tenth of an American or a western European life—and then feeding calculations based on such valuations into the consideration of whether particular actions are cost effective.
Such obscene ideas—I could even call them blasphemous—could become a serious impediment to progress in climate change negotiations. The Indian Minister responsible for the environment and forests wrote a letter to a number of Governments, including that of the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister has seen a copy of it, and I shall quote from it:
In my judgment, the present impasse became inevitable when the alleged cost-effectiveness of Joint Implementation was sought to be based on absurd and discriminatory Global Cost/Benefit Analysis procedures propounded by economists in the work of IPCC Working Group III … We unequivocally reject the theory that the monetary value of peoples lives around the world is different because the value imputed should be proportional to the disparate income levels of the potential victims concerned.
The Minister then moved on to a linked although distinct issue:
To compound the problem, global damage assessments are being expressed in US dollar equivalent. Thus the monetary significance of damages to developing countries is substantially under-represented. Damage to human beings, whether in developed or in developing countries, must be treated as equal, and cannot be translated in terms of currency exchange rate systems.
Finally, and powerfully and importantly, the Minister says:
Faced with this we feel that this level of misdirection must be purged from the negotiation process. The distributional issue of unequal-rights-by-income versus equal-rights-per capita must be resolved to enable fruitful discussions about possible protocols to the Convention, proportionality of commitments and financial mechanisms.
I certainly agree with that, and I am fairly confident that you do too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also confident that the Minister will give us an assurance that the United Kingdom delegation shares the view of the Indian Government and will act accordingly.
The economists may have a role. Let them help to identify the policies necessary to achieve environmental sustainability, and elaborate on the changed patterns of economic activity that sustainability would imply. Let them offer costings for such measures. That is the scope of their expertise, and they should stick to it.
Assuming that such nonsense is purged from the negotiation process, what should the outcome of the conference be for it to be regarded as a success? There must be targets for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the year 2000. The stabilisation of emissions is nowhere near sufficient to stabilise the concentrations in the atmosphere, and it is the concentrations that count.
The IPCC is standing by its 1990 claim that to stabilise carbon dioxide concentrations at current levels, humanity must cut global carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. globally, and that has implications for greater reductions in the northern developed countries. Bearing that in mind, the Association of Small Island States—which comprises 36 countries—has demanded that a protocol be added to the convention which sets a target for carbon dioxide reductions of 20 per cent. for industrialised countries by the year 2005. As a first step, that seems to be modest indeed. That, of course, is the Toronto target, which has already been incorporated into the national plans of eight industrialised countries. AOSIS has the backing of the G77 group in Berlin.
Meanwhile, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries—driven by a short-term interpretation of its material self-interest—is opposing any reduction in the targets at all. That is why the rules and procedures adopted are so important. A requirement for unanimity in setting targets would be fatal, and I understand that the Government will be strongly supporting majority voting. I hope that the Minister can confirm that. The negotiations and the drafting process are continuing on the assumption that majority voting will apply, but a decision on the consensus process and the majority voting issue will have to be made at next Mondays plenary session.
At the very least, the minimum that should emerge from the conference is a negotiating process to establish emission reductions which will be finally agreed at the next conference. The poorer countries are naturally demanding that the industrial countries, which are responsible for the problem—America is responsible for 24 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions on its own—take the lead.
There is suspicion among the G77 countries concerning the idea of joint implementation, whereby twinned industrialised and underdeveloped countries would agree a joint reduction target and plan. It is important that that should not become a licence for high emissions from industrialised countries which inhibit the development of the underdeveloped countries and hold back their hopes of achieving an improvement in their quality of life. Will the UK delegation push for the IPCC secretariat to be required to verify and monitor any joint implementation schemes?
The Government have made much of their claimed success that they will be saving between 17 million and 25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by the year 2000, which is going beyond the 10 million tonnes target necessary for stabilising emissions at 1990 levels. Their success is largely fortuitous, and it masks the Governments failure to achieve most of the specific objectives which they set themselves in 1992, including a significant expansion of combined heat and power. They have used excuses not to develop a truly sustainable energy policy and to establish more ambitious targets.
Achieving sustainability will involve far-reaching adjustments in the way we run our community and our economy. We and the rest of the industrial world—the Annex 1 countries—must now commit ourselves to a

menu of undertakings under familiar and well-established headings. Those must include energy planning and efficiency in all sectors—including the expansion of CHP for fossil fuel burning—a major commitment to renewables which includes research and development in pioneering techniques like photovoltaics, and the transfer of technologies to third-world countries which would otherwise go in for a large consumption of fossil fuels and an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. We must enable those countries to achieve development without undergoing environmental degradation.
We need taxation and investment policies which encourage the conservation of energy while encouraging employment and emphasising social equity. We must employ the carrot, as well as the stick. We also need a continuing educational drive and public information initiative to influence consumer choice and life style. Those areas are crucial for our economic policy and for our environmental and social welfare generally, and not climate change alone. In fact, those matters would be relevant and valid even if we disproved the climate change theory. However, climate change is now the urgent issue and the catalyst for action.
It is essential that, following the Berlin conference, the Secretary of State makes an oral statement to the House or opens a full debate, as climate change is an issue of sufficient gravity to merit at least that parliamentary time. I look forward to getting the Ministers assurance on that matter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Todays debate gives us an opportunity to come down to earth between the cataclysmic alarmists and the it will never happen to me brigade. I am certainly not getting my horse and cart out yet.
If we could come down to some practicalities, today is a good opportunity to debate the matter, particularly since this week sees the opening of the first meeting of the conference of parties to the climate change convention in Berlin.
The conference will be attended by Ministers from more than 120 countries, and that emphasises how seriously it is being taken. They will be considering the adequacy of existing commitments under the convention and the case for setting in hand arrangements to negotiate a protocol on further-reaching measures beyond the year 2000.
At the conference, the Secretary of State will be calling on all developed countries to agree to a tougher new long-term target to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by a figure between 5 and 10 per cent. below the 1990 levels by 2010. The UK has always been at the forefront of the international work under the convention. We are now leading the way in calling for a realistic and achievable reduction target for the year 2010.
Three main issues were raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). First, he mentioned the questioning of the science of climate change, and the seriousness of the threat. There are variations in attitude from those who say it will never happen to me through to those who would take us back to the horse and cart, and would have us living in tents. Secondly, he talked about the international response under the climate change convention and the leading international role that is being played by the UK. Thirdly,


he raised the UKs contribution to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, and the possible options for further reductions.
The climate change convention was signed by the Prime Minister at the 1992 Rio Earth summit. The convention recognises the need for a co-ordinated global response to tackle the threat of dangerous human interference with the climate system of our planet.
What was the scientific basis for international action? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change carried out a major assessment of climate change in 1990, with supplementary reports published in 1992 and 1994. The main scientific findings were that emissions from human activities were increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases, and that global average temperatures were predicted to rise by between 0.2 deg C and 0.3 deg C per decade—not 3 deg C as the hon. Gentleman stated.

Mr. Dafis: I said that the prediction was that temperatures would rise by 3 deg C by the end of the next century, which is equivalent to 0.3 deg C per decade.

Sir Paul Beresford: I stand corrected.
Associated with the shift in temperature, there may be an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, sea level rises and droughts in some areas, and yesterdays weather did not help. Uncertainties may remain, including the pattern of regional variations. So we do not have a full answer yet, and we are still looking for one.
The climate modelling work being carried out at the Hadley centre is now so developed that the models are able to account with some accuracy for climate variability over the past 100 years. This increases our confidence in the ability of the models to predict future climate change as our ability to use them increases.
We continue to be committed to guiding policy by sound science, which is the only practical and sensible way to proceed. The UKs national research effort places it at the forefront of climate change research. We currently spend about £100 million on data acquisition and archiving, which includes earth observation from satellites. We shall continue to provide a strong input to the international scientific work through the IPCC, with the UK chairing and providing technical and administrative support for the working group on climatological processes. UK scientists are also well represented in the EU research programme on climate change, currently amounting to some £20 million but increasing threefold in the next programme starting in 1995. I should have thought that the size of those sums shows the importance which this country attaches to the issue.
There are still some uncertainties about the timing, magnitude and pattern of climate change, but in view of the scale of the potential threat, it must be right to take precautionary action, particularly where low-cost action now may prevent the need for more expensive and more dramatic action later.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Minister mentioned the uncertainties ahead. Did he see The Money Programme at the weekend, in which insurance companies expressed concern because their job is to predict future events and the degree to which they will be called on to pay out sums? As this country makes a more-than-average contribution to the world insurance market, is it not

particularly important to Britain's insurance market that we take effective action as soon as possible to combat global warming?

Sir Paul Beresford: I did not see the programme, although I am aware of the problem. Incidentally, the reason why I did not see the programme was because of other events rather than the fact that it was on the BBC. Hon. Members will agree that any action must be based on sound science. Action being taken now is moving towards changes and improvements, and it is being undertaken using sensible and economic means. It would be wrong to take draconian measures without understanding and knowing, on the sound base of science, which way we are going.
The first meeting of the conference of parties to the climate change convention is currently taking place in Berlin. This is reviewing the adequacy of existing commitments under the convention, and we hope that it will set in hand negotiations on possible future commitments.
The Government are convinced that developed countries have a lead responsibility in demonstrating what can be done, which is why the Secretary of State has already announced that he will call for all developed countries to agree to a figure for the reduction of total greenhouse gas emissions in the range between 5 and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. We believe that such a target would be a credible and achievable next step for those countries to take within the framework of the convention. It will encourage continued international commitment, including from the developing countries. It also marks a significant move to a longer-term target, signalling the need for further reductions, and it reflects the importance of looking at the total effects of all greenhouse gas emissions taken together.
Some people have argued that we should go further. The Association of Small Island States has tabled a proposal for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2005. Having recently come from the south Pacific, I understand the fears and concerns, because a small shift in ocean level would have a dramatic effect on some of those islands. Nevertheless, we must take account of what can realistically be achieved at this stage, and of the scale of costs that can be justified as appropriate under a precautionary approach. We must also remember that we need to make further progress in the science.
It makes neither environmental nor economic sense for countries to set targets unilaterally. The UK is responsible for only some 3 per cent. of global greenhouse gas emissions. It is essential, therefore, that we maintain international commitment under the convention to ensure the development of an effective global response to the threat, which means that we must focus on proposals that are realistic and achievable under the convention, within the European Union and in our UK programme of measures.
In January 1994, we became the first country to present a national programme under the convention and the first in the world to publish a detailed programme demonstrating how we would fulfil our commitment of aiming to return emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000. The centrepiece of our programme is the set of measures to limit emissions of carbon dioxide—the main greenhouse gas. That was drawn up following extensive consultation, and it contains


a balanced package of fiscal, educational and regulatory measures covering all sectors of the economy. It provides the framework that encourages the development of voluntary partnerships with Government, and we believe that it is important for everyone to play their part. It also encourages individuals and organisations to exploit the considerable scope for taking action that is cost-effective in its own right—so-called no regrets measures, which bring with them economic, social and other environmental benefits as well as reducing emissions.
To ensure that we met our commitment, the measures were designed to achieve savings equivalent to 10 million tonnes of carbon against projected emissions in 2000. The latest energy projections, published by the Department of Trade and Industry on 8 March this year, show that not only can we be confident of meeting our commitment, but that we now expect to exceed it, with emissions of carbon dioxide some 6 to 13 million tonnes of carbon below 1990 levels by 2000.
That considerable achievement reflects both the impact of the measures in our programme and our successful policy of privatisation and continuing deregulation of the electricity and gas industries. There has been a significant reduction in the carbon intensity of fuels used for electricity generation, through the increased investment in combined cycle gas turbines, the development of combined heat and power schemes, and the improved performance of nuclear generation. Interestingly, the community, local authorities and housing associations can play an important role in combined heat and power schemes. I was intrigued recently to open just such a scheme, in which engines originally designed for warfare tanks were turned into combined heat and power generators. The savings were considerable and the improvements in heat and power on the estates were dramatic.
Since its launch, our programme has, of course, evolved and some circumstances have changed. To give just a few examples, recent developments include the fact that road

fuel duties rose last year by 8.6 per cent. in real terms—substantially more than our annual 5 per cent. commitment. Given the area from which he originates, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will realise that that presents some difficulties for people who live in rural areas, and we must reflect on that.
Another development is that new campaigns run by my Departments energy efficiency office include the making of a corporate commitment campaign, which has over 1,800 signatories and is succeeding in changing board-level attitudes to energy efficiency. That campaign is aimed at persuading firms, in particular, to recognise the financial and economic efforts of taking an energy-efficient approach in addition to the benefits of cutting greenhouse gases. Furthermore, new building regulations are about to come into effect which should improve energy efficiency standards in new homes and buildings by an estimated 25 to 30 per cent. We aim to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy technologies.
The third renewables non-fossil fuel obligation order was announced last December. That is expected to double the capacity of electricity from renewable sources already operational under the first two rounds. It keeps the Government on course as we work towards 1,500 MW of new and renewable generating capacity in the UK by the year 2000.
Looking ahead beyond the year 2000, we shall implement further policies and measures to deliver any long-term savings agreed under the convention. In doing so, we shall take account of the costs of the various options, including the social and environmental values, which cannot readily be quantified.
The prompt and successful implementation of our existing commitments, and the continuing beneficial effects of the measures that we have already taken, will put the UK in an excellent position to meet the challenge that the Secretary of State will put to developed countries in Berlin.
As I said at the beginning, there is a balance.

Educational Property (Twickenham)

2 pm

Mr. Toby Jessel: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I first thank you for the opportunity to raise the question of educational land at Craneford way, Twickenham? The House of Commons has always served as a forum for Members to raise the concerns of constituents. That is what I shall do today.
I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education to direct his attention to the real anxieties of the residents of Heatham park, Twickenham and not merely to deal with the legal position at Craneford way, where the Education Assets Board has divided into two the ownership of an important piece of land. It has done so apparently without regard to the impact on the surroundings of people living nearby in Craneford way, Court way, Heathfield north, Heathfield south, Egerton road, Chudleigh road, Whitton road and beyond.
The people living in the district already suffer from aircraft noise from Heathrow, from heavy traffic along the A316 trunk road—the Great Chertsey road, which is the M3 motorway feeder—from the rugby football crowds on big match days at the Rugby Football Union grounds, Twickenham, only a few hundred yards away, from Richmond upon Thames borough councils big rubbish depot in Craneford way and from its rubbish lorries clanking noisily over road humps in Egerton road from 5 oclock and 6 oclock in the morning.
The Liberal-controlled Richmond upon Thames borough council even published a draft unitary development plan that showed a railway line from Kingston to Heathrow along a viaduct over the open green fields in question. That was shown in a letter from the chief executive of the council to me dated 9 November 1993. Not surprisingly, that plan attracted fierce opposition, and I urged that it should be dropped, which it was.
The environment of the residents is affected by Richmond upon Thames college at Egerton road as well. That is a highly successful tertiary college with about 3,000 students aged from 16 to 19, although some are older, many of them from my constituency. Others are from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) or from outside the London borough of Richmond upon Thames, but well over 1,000 of the students are from Twickenham. The college is generally highly valued, except perhaps by some of its immediate neighbours. I have had to come to terms with some conflict of interest between the college and the residents.
The problem has arisen because, under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the college ceased to be funded by the local education authority, the Richmond upon Thames borough council, and began instead to be funded by the Further Education Funding Council for England.
I voted for the 1992 Act, as its aim was to ensure that colleges were free to respond to the demand from students and employers for an increase in the amount of high-quality further education. Now that such colleges have left local authority control, more money is being spent on further education, and the participation rate for 16 to 19-year-olds in education has increased significantly, even in those two years.
It all corresponds to the growth in higher education since 1979, as now about one young person in three in the age group from 18 upwards is receiving further or higher education and 15 years ago it was only about one in eight. The work of the tertiary colleges acts as a feeder for that, and in doing so gives opportunities to a larger number of young people who are in that age group.
However, as a result of that change in financial responsibility for the college, there was a dispute about the ownership of two fields to the south of Craneford way, to the south of the college and to the east of the councils rubbish depot. The council and the college both claimed both fields. It fell to the Education Assets Board to decide.
The Education Assets Board ruled that one field should go to the council—the field on the west side, which is marked blue on the map that is used to describe the situation—and that the field on the east side, marked red, should go to the college. Those two fields are divided by a public footpath. The field assigned to the college is more flat and is therefore said to be more suitable as a sports ground, but the residents would have preferred the allocation to be the other way around, because more of them live close to the flatter field and are fearful about the future effect on their environment.
The Education Assets Board, in reaching its decision, took representations from the borough council and from the college, which were deemed under the 1992 Act to be parties to the dispute in that each claimed ownership; but the board did not take evidence from residents, who feel that their environment and their facilities are threatened by the possible loss of access to either or both fields or by parking of large numbers of cars on big rugby union match days or even by building on the site in the future.
Typical of the feeling of such residents is a letter that I received only yesterday, and which I conveyed to my hon. Friend the Minister well on into the evening. It is from a resident of Heathfield south. He wrote on 25 March 1995, but the letter must have come in the second class post and did not arrive until 28 March:
I was incensed at the meeting held at the Tertiary College last night—
I held a public meeting on Thursday night—
when during your introduction I discovered that the EAB had classified the local residents as a third party. As a result … I now understand that
the board
ignored correspondence sent to them in the good faith that it would consider alongside other relevant submissions.
Surely, the EAB have a duty to consider or at the very least pass on the correspondence to the relevant parties in the dispute or otherwise to clearly—
I repeat, clearly—
explain the reasons why they are unable to accept our submissions. I was simply informed by their legal adviser that I may wish to ask the Borough Council to consider my comments which quite frankly is totally misleading. It was not until your meeting that I discovered that they would only consider submissions that came directly from the parties in dispute.
It would of course have been open to the Richmond upon Thames borough council, as a party to the dispute, to represent all such views to the Education Assets Board, and in that way it would have been possible for the board to take environment into account. In this case, it appears that the board did not do so, because my constituent was not given anything like a full explanation of his rights by the Education Assets Board, which seems to have replied to him in a rather cavalier and vague fashion.


Furthermore, the council could have appealed to the Secretary of State for Education against the Education Assets Boards decision. However, the council decided not to do so. Instead of appealing, the council asked the Secretary of State to put two conditions on the transfer of the land. Those conditions were to keep the field unfenced and to make sure that the field was used only for the purpose of education and recreation and not for any commercial purposes. Those two conditions proposed by the council are set out in a letter to me from the chief executive of the council dated 21 March, which I have passed to my hon. Friend.
It is of course Government policy to promote more sports and games in schools—both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education have said so repeatedly. Schools usually means for children up to 16 years. Of course, if there were an increase in sports and games among children up to 16, then, in time, that would result in more demand for sports and games provision for the over-16s.
The college is adamant that it needs the playing fields for sport as it aims to be a sports centre for west London. It says that its current use of the sports field is inhibited by dog messes as people are allowed to walk their dogs in the field which is unfenced. The college says that, as a result, it has to hire sports fields elsewhere which are less convenient as they are further away, and which cost the college money.
I should like to stress to my hon. Friend that there is a credibility gap between the college and the residents. The residents say that the fields have hardly ever—I repeat, hardly ever—been used for sport. It has been reported to me that, when an inspector from the Education Assets Board came all the way from its offices in Leeds to look at the lie of the land, two sports matches were put on for his benefit, a car from the college met him at Twickenham station and he was then given lunch at the college. I must ask my hon. Friend to check the evidence as to the real extent of the historic usage of the field for sport, as otherwise it is entirely possible that the adjudication of the Education Assets Board was based on false premises, which already one of my constituents has asked me to refer to the ombudsman.
The college has lodged an appeal with the Secretary of State against the councils conditions. I understand that that is what my hon. Friend who is advising the Secretary of State has to deal with. I took up those conditions with my hon. Friend, but I was told that there was some doubt in his Department about the legality of imposing such conditions. Therefore, last Thursday—the day of the public meeting which I called—I sought legal advice from Mr. Stephen Mason, QC, Counsel to the Speaker. Mr. Mason examined the matter fully and he has since written to me as follows:
The question is whether, on the appeal, she—
the Secretary of State—
could impose (for the first time) conditions or restrictions on the future use of the part of the land transferred to the College.
My advice is that she has no power to do so; and nor has the Board.
He means the Education Assets Board. He continued:
The Board can only do what these statutory provisions require or authorise it to do. And the Secretary of State can only in law do what the Board can do. The statutory functions are restricted to the transfer of existing property, rights and liabilities. The only scope for the creation of new rights and liabilities is for the protection of one party to the transfer as against the other. It is clear that the interests of any other persons are not in law a proper part of any determination of the Board or of the Secretary of State. So if she

created the new restrictions on use for the protection of the local residents her decision would make her liable to proceedings for judicial review of it.
That means that, if the Secretary of State does, or tries to do, what the Richmond upon Thames borough council has asked in imposing the two conditions, the college could take the Secretary of State to court and would win the case. If that is so, the Richmond upon Thames borough council has asked the Secretary of State to make a decision which she has no power to do. Yet the council seems to have relied upon the Secretary of State to impose the conditions while it decided not to appeal against the decision of the Education Assets Board to divide the land.
I understand that the solicitor employed by Richmond borough council was told by a lady in the office of the Education Assets Board that the Secretary of State might make conditions, which turns out not to be the case. Surely it is such an important matter for the residents that the Richmond upon Thames borough council should have taken a second legal opinion before deciding what or what not to do.
I come to the question of what can be done for the residents now, and I shall make eight quick points. First, the borough council should get a second legal opinion on what Mr. Mason wrote. But, to be realistic, that is not a very promising course as, even if the legal opinions differed, the Secretary of State would still have to face the risk of the college taking her to court if she attempted to decide in favour of the councils conditions. Secondly, in the light of Mr. Masons advice, is it legal for the Secretary of State to extend the final date of the appeal against the adjudication by the EAB to give the council another chance to appeal?
Thirdly, towards the end of his letter, Mr. Mason wrote:
If, however, the land in question were subject to restrictions on its use (as by restrictive covenants, trust restrictions or perhaps planning permission) then the land would be transferred subject to these existing restrictions.
Could my hon. Friend look at those restrictions? Fourthly—perhaps this is the most promising idea—Mr. Mason wrote:
I cannot say whether planning permission would be required for a change of use from recreation to use as a car park. But I think it probable that it would be if the changed use was a regular feature.
Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for the Environment about that in order to give guidance to my constituents, a large number of whom are very concerned about the car park?
Fifthly, does the metropolitan open land designation under the unitary development plan help to protect people there from developments? Sixthly, can the college be encouraged to renounce any question of using the land as a car park? Perhaps the funding council could be asked to speak to the college about that. Seventh, there is concern about the safety of women and children using the footpath between the fields to which I referred. Can that issue be looked at?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the needs of children are paramount. If the eastern field became a playing field for older youths aged 16 to 19 years, it would be even more important to keep the western field available for young children. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in encouraging Richmond council to make certain that that takes place.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on securing this debate on a matter, which I know is of great concern to him and to his constituents.
I begin by making it clear that there are two aspects to the dispute about the Craneford way playing fields, and that only one of them comes within the remit of the Education Assets Board—about which I shall say more later—and of the Secretary of State for Education. That is the question of the entitlement under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 of the London borough of Richmond and Richmond upon Thames college to the playing fields. The aspect of the dispute in which neither the assets board nor the Secretary of State for Education has a role concerns the use made of the playing fields by their owners and by local residents under planning legislation. I think that it is that question which is of most direct concern to my hon. Friend.
I fully understand that concern, but I am afraid that it is not a matter for the Education Assets Board or for my Department. It is primarily a matter for the London borough of Richmond as the local planning authority. However, I shall ask a ministerial colleague at the Department of the Environment to write to my hon. Friend about the planning and land use questions that he has raised with me. I may be able to say something about them later in my remarks.
My Departments role is confined to the appeal lodged by the borough against the determination of the assets board regarding the colleges entitlement to part of the Craneford way playing fields. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too disappointed when I tell him that I am not in a position to anticipate how the Secretary of State might decide this particular case, nor can I respond in this debate to all the points that he has raised. We shall study the record and may write to him subsequently. I shall also arrange for officials to draw them to the attention of the borough and the college respectively, as the two protagonists in the dispute.
The dispute has arisen as a consequence of college independence. In 1993, we transferred responsibility for providing further education from local education authorities such as the London borough of Richmond, to colleges, including tertiary colleges, such as Richmond upon Thames college.
This transfer of responsibility was accompanied by the transfer to colleges of the property, including land, held or used by authorities for the purposes of those colleges. The transfer was necessary because it would clearly not have been sensible to give colleges responsibility for providing further education without giving them the means to do so.
I emphasise that the transfer of property has not privatised it. The property remains in public ownership; it has simply transferred from one public body to another. I also emphasise that the Craneford way playing fields could have been excluded from transfer and remained in the hands of the local authority. That could have been achieved by agreement between the college and the authority, provided that the Secretary of State approved their agreement.
Alternatively, in the absence of such an agreement, the college or authority could have applied to the Secretary of State for the transfer to be waived. In either case, the college could have been permitted to use the land, subject to appropriate conditions, but neither of those options was pursued and they are no longer available. However, it is still open to the two parties to reach an agreement on the disposition of the land and any conditions attaching thereto.
How has ownership of property transferred to colleges? Where possible, it is done by agreement between authorities and colleges under the oversight of the Education Assets Board, which is responsible for securing agreement with authorities about what properties should transfer to colleges. Where agreement has been reached in principle directly between an authority and a college, the boards role has been limited to ensuring that that agreement is documented, but where a college and authority have been unable to reach agreement, the assets board has a duty to try to negotiate one. Where such an agreement appears to the board to be unlikely, or has not been reached after negotiation, the board has power to give a direction which determines the dispute. That is what the board has had to do in the case of Craneford way playing fields.
The Education Assets Board is a small non-departmental public body based in Leeds. It has 10 part-time members, including a chairman, appointed by the Secretary of State for their experience of property management, education, local government and finance. It also has some 19 full-time equivalent officials, including a chief executive who is a further member of the board.
The assets board has so far completed the transfer of property from local authorities to 165 further education corporations, and is currently considering a further 319 such transfers, but the boards remit is not confined to further education. It also oversees the transfer of property from local authorities to other types of educational institution which have left their control, such as grant-maintained schools.
The board reaches its decisions by negotiation wherever possible, but it is clearly sometimes necessary to bring stalled negotiations about a property transfer to a conclusion. As I have mentioned, the board has power to break such a log-jam by giving a direction.
The boards power of direction is not unbounded. There are two constraints. First, the board must act reasonably, and its decisions must be capable of withstanding scrutiny.

Mr. Jessel: On the question of withstanding scrutiny, will my hon. Friend deal with my question about what remedy exists if the Education Assets Board has reached a decision based on wrong assumptions about the facts because the official from the board visiting the site was bamboozled as to the extent to which the field had been used for sport in the past?

Mr. Boswell: I shall respond to my hon. Friend rather briefly on that matter. As he knows, an appeal has been lodged and it is for the parties to that appeal to bring forward evidence for the Secretary of States consideration in determining the appeal. I may wish to write to him further on the matter.
Secondly, the law prescribes how disputed property is to be treated by a local authority and college in any agreement between them. The assets board is bound by


the same rules if an authority and college cannot agree and it has to determine the dispute. In particular, where an authority held or used property partly for the purposes of college and partly for other purposes, and where the nature of the property permits its division, the law requires the property to be divided between the college and authority as appropriate.
The boards approach to disputes is therefore primarily forensic. Was the property held or used wholly for the college or for other purposes of the authority? If it was held partly for each, can the property be divided between them? If so, what would be the appropriate division? If it cannot be divided, how should it be treated?
A determination by the board is not necessarily the last word in the dispute. Either the college or the authority may appeal against it to the Secretary of State, as the borough has done in the case of Craneford way, but the Secretary of States consideration of an appeal is also constrained. She acts in a quasi-judicial role, so she is bound by the rules of natural justice. Like the assets board, she is bound by the law regarding transfers and may not deviate from it.
As a result, the Secretary of State may not consider the views of third parties, such as local residents, in an appeal against a determination by the assets board. It is open to them to put their views to their local authority, or the college. However, it must remain for the authority or college to decide how to present its appeal.
I realise that some in Twickenham question whether the London borough of Richmond has adequately represented their views. I am afraid that the issue is not a matter for the Secretary of State. Residents must take up their concerns with the borough.
I know that it is a sore point with local residents that they have not so far had sight of the submissions to the assets board made by the borough and the college in support of their case regarding the playing fields, despite having asked both the board and my Department to release the submissions.
Their request for disclosure of legal argument submitted to the Secretary of State by a third party has raised novel and difficult questions of openness versus confidentiality. We have not decided whether the information sought should be properly released. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall reach a decision and write to him as soon as possible.
It is a sore point that the law does not give third parties a statutory right to object to property transfers or the terms on which they take place.

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Boswell: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I must complete my speech for the record. I shall write to him about any further points.
That rule is the case both when the assets board is considering a dispute and when the Secretary of State is considering an appeal against a determination by the board.
There are two reasons for that exclusion. First, the disputes concern the entitlement of the local authority or of the college to ownership of the property in question. Third parties who have no claim to property do not normally have the right to involve themselves in a dispute about its ownership.
Secondly, the position of third parties in relation to property transferred by a college is not altered by the transfer. Any legally enforceable rights which they had in relation to the property before it transferred remain intact after the transfer and any covenants or other restrictions to which the property was subject while it was owned by the authority continue to bind the college.
Moreover, although residents do not have a statutory right of objection to the transfer of property to a college, they continue to have such a right regarding the colleges development of that property, because colleges are bound by the same planning laws and regulations as other local bodies.
I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be reassured to know that Richmond college would need planning permission to develop the playing fields, and that local residents could formally object if the college lodged a planning application. They have a further safeguard: the playing fields, both east and west, are classed as metropolitan open land. That is the urban equivalent of green-belt land, and there is a general presumption against inappropriate development within such land.
This is bound to have been a somewhat disappointing reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. I am sorry about that, but the debate has been valuable in casting light on a rather obscure but important area of public administration and in recording the views of my hon. Friend and his constituents on a matter that is clearly of considerable importance to them. He has represented their views with characteristic force and diligence.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's objectives for the European Union intergovernmental conference in 1996. [14939]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The IGC will be an opportunity to consolidate the achievements of the European Union and prepare for enlargement to the east. Our goal will be a Union that is flexible, efficient and responsive to popular concerns.

Mr. Raynsford: The Foreign Secretary referred to consolidating achievements. Given the deteriorating position in Bosnia and the European Unions recorded failure in recent years to respond effectively to the tragedy in the former Yugoslavia, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the lack of co-ordinated action on security and foreign affairs is one of Europe's current weaknesses. Does he see the IGC as an opportunity to remedy that?

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. We have worked closely with our European partners on Bosnia, and continue to do so. For example, 10 days ago we put together our policy again—particularly with the French and Germans, who are fellow members of the contact group. But, however well we co-ordinate our policy within the European Union—as we do—that in itself does not guarantee our ability to provide a solution to the conflict in Bosnia. The fighting in Bosnia will end when those who are doing the fighting decide to end it.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest achievements, which should certainly be consolidated, is the creation of the single market? Will he consider giving more publicity to the results of that—for example, the greater success of our exporters in the Spanish market? Instead of an adverse trade balance of nearly £250 million, we now have a strong positive balance of well over £1 billion, which means many more jobs in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is right, and he speaks from his own experience. The achievement of the single market is one of the big benefits of our membership of the European Union. It is not yet complete, however, and during the next few years we shall seek to ensure that it is complete and that the remaining protectionist devices that impede it are swept away.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On earlier occasions, the Foreign Secretary has confirmed that in drawing up the objectives for the IGC the Government will want to take account of the views of all political parties. What mechanisms does he propose for consultation—not least with former members of his party who have had access to the Home Secretary for such a discussion, have been denied access to the Chancellor for such a discussion and,

presumably, are very keen to know whether the Foreign Secretary would be willing to meet them—and, if he did meet them, to what extent he would empathise with them?

Mr. Hurd: My door is always open to the hon. Gentleman—and, of course, to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Dykes: In the last few words of his original answer, my right hon. Friend referred to consulting the public properly. Does he agree that, if Ministers boldly tell the public more about the reasons for European Union combined policies, they will be both reassured and more enthusiastic? Will he assure us that from now on Ministers will do that?

Mr. Hurd: We do that all the time; whether the media report it is a different matter.

Ms Quin: Did the Foreign Secretary hear the chairman of ICL tell the Britain in the World conference this morning that negative and backward-looking views of Europe were undermining Britain's ability to be taken seriously in the world? How does he respond to the fact that the Conservative party is now the only party of its kind in the European Union that is not a full member of the European Peoples party? How will that isolation help the Tories to win allies in the 1996 process?

Mr. Hurd: I cannot think that the nature of the connections between our MEPs and the European Peoples party is central to the issue.
I heard Sir Peters remarks. He made a very good speech to the conference that is in progress today, and I think that his basic point was entirely right. It is in the interests not only of the British business community but of Britain as a whole for the House and the country, in the coming months, to work out coherently an approach to the future of the European Union with which we, as a nation, can be at ease. The Government are now doing that. It is perfectly possible to arrive at conclusions and proposals that will have wide support in the House and in the country.

Anglo-Israeli Relations

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Britain and Israel. [14940]

Mr. Hurd: They are excellent. During the recent visit to Israel of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he and Mr. Rabin agreed that our relations have never been better.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the success of the visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on which he was accompanied by 30 leading industrialists? Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agree that one issue affecting peace in the middle east is the continuing incarceration of Ron Arad, who has been a prisoner of the Iranians and their allies for eight and a half years?

Mr. Hurd: I agree. My right hon. Friend met Mrs. Arad, and we will continue to do anything that we sensibly can to improve the prospects of solving the problem and bringing about Mr. Arad's release. My hon. Friend is right to say that opportunities for British trade


with Israel have greatly improved. British exports with Israel rose from £586 million in 1992 to £1,032 million last year, which is good progress.

Mr. Foulkes: Surely the Secretary of State is aware that the per capita income of the Palestine National Authority has decreased nearly 50 per cent. since it was established, and that only just over a quarter of the promised aid has been pledged. As the success of the middle east peace process depends on relieving people of economic distress, does not the Foreign Secretary need to match his fine words with a clear commitment to genuine assistance to the peace process?

Mr. Hurd: Oh, dear. The hon. Gentleman should study the facts before he poses such questions. Britain is among the countries giving the quickest and most substantial help to the Palestinians with what they are trying to do in Jericho and Gaza. While my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in Israel, he handed over 25 Land-Rovers and 25 minibuses for the civilian branch of the police, and we have helped to pay police salaries. My right hon. Friend also announced £7 million of new bilateral aid for the Palestinians, in addition to the assistance that we give through Europe. Britain is among the foremost in encouraging the Palestinians to make a success of their new responsibilities.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in conducting Britain's relations with Israel he is responsible to Parliament? Does he accept that all parts of the House admire his courtesy in operating an open-door policy for all hon. Members? Does he agree that where such courtesies are not extended, that is not only insulting to individual hon. Members but denies them the opportunity properly to represent their constituents?

Mr. Hurd: Over many years, I do not think that my hon. Friend has knocked on my door in vain.

Middle East Peace Process

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current progress of the middle east peace process. [14941]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The recent visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan emphasised Britain's firm support for the peace process, which continues to offer the best hope for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

Mr. Janner: I much appreciated the recent visit by the Prime Minister and others to Israel. During the visit to Jordan, did Ministers form the impression that Jordan is playing an active, useful and important part in the peace process? If so, has not the time come to remit its debt to this country, which in any event is not likely to be paid?

Mr. Hogg: Jordan is playing an important and continuing part in the peace process. The hon. and learned Gentleman may know that £46 million of Overseas Development Administration debt was transferred into grant, so it has effectively been written off. He may know also that there has been substantial rescheduling of debt, supported by the British Government and the Paris Club. The United Kingdom has contributed more than $200

million so far. That rescheduling will expire in 1997, when we will be willing to consider prospects for further rescheduling.

Mr. Rathbone: Despite what has been said in answer to previous questions, does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate the horror at Israels treatment of imprisoned Lebanese in southern Lebanon and of fishermen along the Lebanese coast, which has put thousands of Lebanese out of work, and at the continued aggression towards the country of Lebanon by Israeli forces and those under their control?

Mr. Hogg: We stand by resolution 425, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, for the moment at least, the blockade of the fishing boats to which he referred has been discontinued, following strenuous representations by the British Government and others.
The imprisonment to which my hon. Friend refers is a serious matter. The British Government, and I in particular, have made representations to the Israeli Government on a number of occasions. We welcome the fact that quite recently the Israeli Government released at least 32 prisoners from Khiam prison. We also welcome the fact that it was recently decided to allow some families into the prison for visits. I agree with the broad thrust of my hon. Friends remarks: there is much more to be done. People held without due process of trial should be released.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister accept that one of the most pleasing aspects of the Prime Ministers recent visit to Gaza was the press conference that he gave at the conclusion of his meeting with President Arafat? Given the Prime Ministers statement that the European Union is to take a leading role in the elections, which are due to take place once the second stage of the interim agreement has been agreed, can the Minister tell the House that Britain intends to be the main co-ordinator of the elections? Will he further assure the House that the many Members of this House who have had experience of helping with other elections in emerging democracies—I think particularly of the useful help they gave in the South African elections—will be called upon to help the Palestinians in the forthcoming elections?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I hope that there will be elections before the end of the year. They have taken much longer to be held than we would have wished; it is unlikely that negotiations on the electoral process will be concluded before 1 July, which suggests, I am afraid, that the elections will be held in October and not sooner.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was at the Prime Ministers initiative that the proposal for EU electoral observers was made. We are now in contact with our European partners to see how that can best be carried forward. I very much hope that British observers will be among those sent to watch the elections.

Cyprus

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cyprus to discuss its accession to the EU. [14943]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): We are in regular contact with


the Cypriot authorities to discuss Cypruss application for EU membership. President Clerides visited London in January and met my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Waterson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government are lending their full support to the efforts of the French presidency to broker a settlement in Cyprus that will involve an agreement to a customs union with Turkey—and also, importantly, the accession of Cyprus to the EU?

Mr. Davis: I certainly agree with the view implicit in my hon. Friends comments—that the conclusion of the Foreign Affairs Council on Cypruss accession and the Turkish customs union is a good deal for all parties concerned. Accordingly, the United Kingdom gave strong support to the French presidency in its successful efforts to reach an agreement. That agreement was rightly welcomed by the Cypriot Government, and President Clerides singled out the United Kingdom among all the EU nations for its helpful contribution.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will be aware that Cyprus is one of a long list of countries that aspire to membership of the European Union. The list, as he knows, includes many countries from central and eastern Europe which will, perhaps, be watching these exchanges carefully. Where does Cyprus come in the pecking order?

Mr. Davis: I do not think that there is a pecking order. The Corfu Council made it clear that Cyprus and Malta would be in the next stage of enlargement, as will the central European countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that the Government could do much more to help in Cyprus, where there are still problems with missing people and refugees who, sadly and tragically, cannot return to their own homes? Is it not about time that the British Government did much more, in ministerial visits and using their good offices, especially as they are a guarantor power, to bring about a just and lasting solution?

Mr. Davis: The best answer to the hon. Lady would be President Cleridess comment, when he said what a good job we did in supporting the accession discussions. We have taken a strong interest in the missing persons problem. Our view is that if both communities helped more, we would make further progress.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that we owe it to the memory of the British service men who died on active service in Cyprus to ensure that Cyprus becomes the kind of community that we want within the European Union before it is given any kind of nod and wink that it is likely to join?

Mr. Davis: We look forward to Cyprus joining the Community. We would hope to see it join as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, and to join in such a way that all the people of Cyprus gain from accession.

Arms Sales, Burma

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has held on the embargo on sales of arms to Burma; and if he will make a statement. [14944]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Our policy towards Burma, including the European Union arms embargo, is kept under review in our regular contacts with European Union partners.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for his earlier responses to written questions. Is he not concerned, however, that other Government Departments are being less unequivocal than he is in supporting the arms embargo against Burma? The Department of Trade and Industry, for example, refers in written answers to information being commercially confidential. Given todays revelations about the Chief Secretary's supposed role in the sale of arms to other countries, does the Minister think that it is time that we had a full and open inquiry about the role of all Government Departments in the sale of arms to such regimes?

Mr. Goodlad: Exports of arms and ammunition to all destinations are subject to strict controls according to agreed international criteria. No licences have been granted for the export of military equipment from the United Kingdom to Burma since the imposition of the European Union arms embargo in 1991.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend look beyond the question of the arms embargo to Myanmar to the rich potential that that market offers British business men? In particular, can his Department build on the excellent British week that was recently held in Rangoon, continue the admirable role in export promotion and encourage British business men to take advantage of a market that is of increasing attraction to regional neighbours, such as Japan, Singapore and Taiwan? British business men should be benefiting too.

Mr. Goodlad: Trade between this country and Burma, with which we have historic links, is at a low level at the moment. Our exports last year amounted to no more than £13 million. Our industrial and trading reputation remains high. There is no obstacle to British firms exploring business that is not covered by the arms embargo. They must be in a position to take advantage of opportunities and to meet competition from rivals, but, of course, the Government offer them no financial support.

Sanctions, Iraq

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects sanctions on Iraq to be eased or lifted. [14945]

Mr. Hurd: The UN Security Council will modify sanctions against Iraq only when it is satisfied that Iraq has complied fully with all the relevant UN resolutions. The Iraqi Government know what needs to be done to comply: we look to them to do it.

Mr. Cohen: If the Government are so dead set against lifting sanctions on Iraq, why did the Department of Trade and Industry grant communication licences to a British trade delegation visiting Baghdad last month? Instead of starving the dictator, are we not simply starving the people of Iraq? While few would object to the arms ban remaining, why not ease, for example, the oil embargo, so that humanitarian assistance can get through to the people?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are already Security Council resolutions that enable Iraq,


under certain conditions, to sell oil and buy food and medicine for its people. We are actually strengthening that. We are putting forward plans with the American and Argentine delegations in the Security Council to make that easier, to offer more supplies and less stringent monitoring. If the Iraqi Government turn down this new initiative it will be perfectly clear that it is they and not the international community who are imposing suffering on their own people.

Mr. Fabricant: Does not the unconfirmed report of the assassination attempt on the eldest son of Saddam Hussein clearly show that there is growing pressure on the evil Baathist regime in Iraq? Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the very time when we should not let up on sanctions? I urge him not to listen to the wishy-washy policies of the Labour party.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have to be concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people. That is why we are taking this new initiative in the Security Council. It is up to the Iraqi Government to respond to that initiative rather than to impose, of their own wish, fresh suffering on their own people.

Mr. Dalyell: At his convenience, could the Foreign Secretary undertake to give some personal reflection to the report that has been sent to him by Ryad Al Farid outlining the deaths of 400,000 or more Iraqi children in the past five years? There is no question, is there, of Her Majesty's Government endorsing military action against Baghdad?

Mr. Hurd: It depends on what Baghdad does. The hon. Gentleman is correct if what he is saying is that there has been a great deal of hardship and suffering throughout Iraq—in the north, in the central area because of sanctions and in the south. In that respect the sanctions are self-imposed. Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 have for a long time enabled Iraq to sell its oil under certain conditions, and to pay part of the proceeds in compensation to its victims, using the rest to relieve the needs of its own people. I hope that people such as the hon. Gentleman, who throughout has shown sympathy, which I understand, for the people of Iraq, will also take every opportunity to urge the Iraqi authorities to accept measures that are for the benefit of their own people.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the consequences for the lives of those living in northern Iraq of the current military intervention by Turkey? What pressure is he bringing to bear upon Turkey, a fellow member of NATO, to discontinue that military action as soon as possible?

Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister spoke about that today at the Britain in the World conference. I have sent a message to the new Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Inonu, stressing our concern and hoping that Turkey will bring this military operation to an end and withdraw its troops at the earliest opportunity.

Rwanda

Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Rwandan Government to discuss the current situation in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement. [14946]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Prime Minister of Rwanda on 22 February during a visit to Britain. The Prime Minister of Rwanda made plain his thanks to Britain for the assistance that we have given in response to the tragic events in Rwanda. My noble Friend Baroness Chalker announced on Friday further aid commitments to Rwanda of £8.8 million, which brings our total aid to Rwanda since 1 January to £18 million.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, because of the rising tension and crisis in the area, the donor countries should make a long-term commitment to prevent further attempts at genocide there?

Mr. Baldry: We would all agree with that. The Rwandan Government have declared their intention to encourage refugees to return home. That is the highest priority. Of course, that Government clearly need help with reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation policies. We are giving that help. We are providing further sums of money for immediate food aid and humanitarian needs, and looking to the future with financial support for human rights monitors, the war crimes tribunal and the reconstruction of the Rwandan judicial system. We shall continue to press the European Union and other multilateral organisations to respond as quickly and as effectively.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: When my hon. Friend discusses the position in Rwanda, will he take time to discuss the position in the neighbouring country of Burundi, which is much smaller, and where the increasing genocide is causing great hardship to the indigenous population? Will he inquire about what can be done?

Mr. Baldry: We are clearly keeping the position in Burundi under close watch. The position in Rwanda and in Burundi makes clear the need to develop in Africa and elsewhere preventive diplomacy systems to try to identify and avert humanitarian tragedies before they occur.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will know that I have just returned from Rwanda. May I assure him that the top priority is to provide a justice system, as Rwanda has been left with no police, no courts and few judges? I urge him, therefore, to respond positively to Rwandas request for British help in the training of a civil police force. Will he inject some urgency into the proceedings of the war crimes tribunal? Would it not be a disgrace for the international community if the anniversary of genocide in Rwanda were reached without a single ringleader being charged before the tribunal?

Mr. Baldry: I am sure that, following his visit to Rwanda, the hon. Gentleman wishes to acknowledge that Britain has responded promptly and generously to Rwandas need for humanitarian assistance. Of course, this is more than a humanitarian problem. Rehabilitation and reconstruction are needed. We must work for a better future for Rwanda. That is why we are seeking to deal with specific problems, why the United Kingdom was the first bilateral contributor to the fund that was set up to finance human rights monitors, why it co-sponsored the Security Council resolution to establish an international


criminal tribunal for Rwanda, why it has pledged £200,000 to fund UK personnel for the prosecutors office and why it is helping the judiciary.
We have recently provided £100,000 in assistance to the Ministry of Justice, which is attempting to reconstruct the Rwandan judicial system. We are responding in every regard to the urgency of the need to build a better future for Rwanda.

European Union Institutions

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to facilitate greater access for United Kingdom parliamentarians to European Union institutions. [14947]

Mr. David Davis: A number of improvements have recently been put into effect, in particular by the House. In addition, Government Departments and the United Kingdom permanent representation in Brussels regularly advise and make arrangements for UK parliamentarians who wish to make contact with representatives of the European Union institutions.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister is well aware that a great deal of ignorance exists about Europe, especially among Conservative Back Benchers. Is it not about time that parliamentarians had proper access and positive leadership, with programmes to introduce Members of Parliament to a thorough knowledge of the matter? Is it not about time that the Government stood up for the European principle and said in a positive manner to Conservative Back Benchers and people outside that the country's future lies in Europe?

Mr. Davis: A competition in ignorance is one of the few competitions that the hon. Gentleman might win, in the past six months, contact between Parliament and European Union institutions has increased dramatically. For example, the number of Select Committees that visit European Union institutions has increased significantly.
More generally, the hon. Gentleman gave no credit to the Government for taking a lead. Largely at the UKs instigation, the European Unions workings have been made more accessible. Votes are routinely published, and the public have access to Council documents. There are open sittings of the Council, and the outcome of each Council is reported to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman attended to none of those matters.

Sir Roger Moate: Would not the very best way to improve relations between hon. Members and the European Parliament be to revert to the old system whereby the House selected members of the European Parliament from among its own Members? That could be facilitated by the benign new Jopling regime under which we all enjoy life so much. Is not that form of subsidiarity—whereby we choose the method of appointing members of the European Parliament—so attractive that it should be on the 1996 agenda?

Mr. Davis: It is open to my hon. Friend to write to the reflection group, of which I am a member, to make that recommendation. However, I do not think that it will have much chance of success.

President of the United States

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the state of relations with the President of the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [14948]

Mr. Hurd: Relations with the United States Administration remain close and friendly at all levels. The Prime Minister will visit Washington next week for talks with President Clinton and senior members of the Administration and Congress.

Mr. MacShane: Is it not a fact that, since the Prime Minister sent a couple of central office flunkies to try to sabotage President Clintons election and behaved like a petulant child over the taking of telephone calls so that President Clinton will now visit Paris, Moscow, Brussels and Bonn but not London, we are incapable of having an adult relationship with our oldest partner and ally under this Government, and that the policy of unsplendid isolation can end only when others are responsible for this country's foreign affairs?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the election and wrong about the American Presidents travel plans. The idea that our relationship with America depends on the timing of telephone calls between busy people is absurd and childish.

Dr. Twinn: When engaging in discussions with the American Administration, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that we in Europe expect the United States to put pressure on Turkey to ensure that it does not exercise a veto over the peace settlement in Cyprus or, indeed, the widening of the European Union?

Mr. Hurd: We are a guarantor power, with Turkey and Greece, of the Cyprus settlement. We work closely with the Americans and the Secretary-General of the United Nations to urge forward a settlement in Cyprus. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has just answered questions about the relationship between that and the accession of Cyprus to the European Union.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State agree, and share my concern about the fact, that the President of the United States perhaps pays too much attention to guidance on golf greens to support the so-called Irish Americans, forgetting that 60 per cent. of them are Scots-Irish? Is it not time that there was a campaign to inform the United States of its indebtedness, not only to the Scots-Irish, but to this nation as a whole?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows that the British Government, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in particular, have been extremely energetic in presenting the truths about Northern Ireland to the American people. He and his colleagues have recently been playing a vigorous part in that, which I welcome.
There have been differences over Ireland with the United States Administration. In our view, it is important that substantial progress should be made on the decommissioning of weapons, and that any funds raised by Sinn Fein should not and could not be used to fund terrorism. These are matters that the Prime Minister will discuss with President Clinton. The responsibility for


handling them rests with the Government who are responsible to the House, and that is accepted by President Clinton.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who go on about doom and gloom in respect of this so-called special relationship fail to take full account of opinion in the United States, not least that in Congress and the Senate? I hope that, like me, my right hon. Friend was heartened to note the other day that Senator Dole issued a press release in which, while urging the President to visit the United Kingdom for the VE day celebrations, he said that not only was Britain Americas closest ally but that America owed a great debt to us for our position in the second world war and that the ties between the two countries are very close and very deep?

Mr. Hurd: Indeed, that is true. We cannot rest, though, simply on comradeship during a war 50 years ago, however important that was. That is why the particular ties which we have with the United States in defence, intelligence and other matters, remain strong and greatly in our interest. Of course the whole Anglo-American relationship does not just depend on relationships between Governments. Everybody—parliamentarians, members of all professions in this country—plays a part in that.

United Kingdom Diplomats

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the role of United Kingdom diplomats abroad. [14949]

Mr. Hurd: Their role is to protect and promote British interests: our prosperity, our security and our citizens abroad. The different elements of the work of the foreign service—political, economic and commercial—are intertwined, particularly at the level of ambassadors. Commercial work is already our largest single activity overseas and that emphasis is increasing further.

Mr. Bayley: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, in the last year for which figures are available, Britain earned £8.9 billion from incoming tourism, which was more than twice as much as we earned exporting cars, three times as much as we earned exporting iron and steel and more than we earned from exporting fuel, including all the North sea oil? How much time will be spent by the 100 new commercial attaches, which he mentioned this morning, if I heard him correctly, on the Today programme, promoting tourism into Britain?

Mr. Hurd: A lot. If the hon. Gentleman visits any of the embassies abroad he will see the emphasis which is put, as foreigners come into British embassies, on tourism and the opportunities for it. I am delighted that, during the lifetime and under the arrangements of this Government, the city of York has made progress in this matter.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the very widespread view that our posts abroad and our diplomats do an excellent job, often in extremely challenging and personally dangerous conditions, on which they deserve to be congratulated? Does he also agree that an area of particularly good value for money in Foreign Office spending is the work of the British Council, which helps to promote the conditions in which

British exports and services are exported, and includes tourism, which is extremely valuable? Does he agree that that is very much in line with the comments made by the Prince of Wales in an excellent speech earlier today?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I entirely agree with what he says about the work of the British Council in promoting, for example, the excellence of education in this country. I am not in favour of grandeur or over-representation and over-staffing overseas. We have cut our representation in the United States by—I think—19 per cent. and in France by 10 per cent. I am emphatically not in favour of shoddy and second-rate representation of this country.

Mr. Madden: Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to urge British diplomats in India to intensify their activities and to persuade the Government of India that there is no prospect of securing lasting peace in Kashmir by mounting doomed elections, but that the Government must now recognise that urgent negotiations are necessary to secure a political settlement?

Mr. Hurd: I have made it clear to the Government of India when I have been there the way forward which we think offers the best hope for Kashmir. They need to discuss the matter with the Government of Pakistan, as they agreed in the Simla agreement. They need, I believe, to start a successful political process in Kashmir. I do not think that the hon. Member is right to dismiss that out of hand. If—I agree that it is an if—it were possible to hold valid elections in Kashmir, it would be a big step forward. The third element in the equation is that those outside should refrain from encouraging violence in Kashmir.

Canada

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Canada. [14950]

Mr. Hurd: Our relations with Canada are excellent.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep sense of loyalty that the British people feel to their kith and kin in Canada, who have never failed to come to our rescue when this country has been threatened by brigands and that the British people are dismayed that we are not taking a firmer line in supporting Canada now that its people are being themselves threatened by the Spanish fishing fleet?
Will my right hon. Friend please make it quite clear that this Government will have nothing to do with sanctions against Canada in this dilemma? Will he also please confirm that the intemperate language being used by Miss Emma Bonino has nothing to do with anything that the British Government would wish to express in this matter?

Mr. Hurd: Perhaps my hon. Friend will telephone Canada house, which will confirm to her that twice in recent days the Canadians have been in touch with me to thank us for the stand that we are taking in the matter. I agree with her that we must avoid and discourage intemperate language by anyone. This is not some sort of adversarial contest in which we simply have to decide which side to whoop on. We are talking about part of the north Atlantic that everybody concerned has over-fished.


There is agreement on what the total catch of Greenland halibut should be, but there is disagreement about how that catch should be shared—that needs to be ironed out.
There is also disagreement about the enforcement necessary. We believe that a high degree of enforcement is necessary, but while the matter is being discussed, and, we hope, agreed, in our British view it is essential that there should be restraint—restraint by the Spaniards, in not fishing in the especially sensitive areas of the nose and tail of the grand banks, and restraint by the Canadians in not taking the law into their own hands and cutting nets, which, as we know from our experience with the Spaniards, is a dangerous thing to do.

Mr. Galloway: The Governments posture over the past few days has shown the value of Britain's use of our special relationship with Canada and with Spain to try to bring about a peace process in the north Atlantic between those two fishing nations. Why can we not use our equally close and equally special relationship with India and with Pakistan to do the same thing over Kashmir?

Mr. Hurd: Fortunately, I have already answered that question.

Latin America

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to help promote Britains trade relations with Latin America. [14951]

Mr. David Davis: Jointly with the Department of Trade and Industry, and in association with the Confederation of British Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is organising a three year Latin American trade campaign—Link Into Latin America—to promote trade and investment. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, launched the campaign at the conference of our heads of mission in Latin America at the CBI Centrepoint on 17 January. Conferences, seminars, inward and outward trade missions, roadshows and lectures are being organised as part of the campaign. We have also strengthened our commercial representation in Latin America.

Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he think that Latin America is an appropriate area for British investment? What is the extent of our investment in that continent, and can it be used as a basis for furthering even more strongly our trade relations with countries in Latin America?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend makes a very perceptive point. Our investment base in Latin America and the Caribbean, measured in 1992—the most recent year for which we have figures—amounted to about £13.4 billion. Also in that year—again, it is the most recent for which we have figures—we invested £1.4 billion in Latin America. That is larger than our investment in north America, and it represents a major source of leverage for us in delivering trade, especially exports, into Latin America.
We try to use that as part of our strategy in dealing with Latin American Governments and in securing good conditions, such as double taxation arrangements, for British traders there, and also in encouraging large British companies to help smaller and medium-sized companies to go into that continent. That has been successful, and

there has been an increase of 21 per cent. in exports to Latin America over the past year. I still think that the strategy could be made even more successful, and that is what we seek to do.

Mr. Tony Banks: What is the state of our trade with Cuba at present, and what pressure are the Government putting on the United States Administration to end their absurd and illegal trade embargo on that island?

Mr. Davis: Our trade with Cuba is perfectly reasonable. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy visited Cuba last year. The visit was successful and he met President Castro, who gave him a great deal of time. As for the relationship between America and Cuba, that is a matter solely for those countries.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind that the economic power of Latin America is greater than that of Africa, the middle east and southern Asia put together, and despite the fact that we have done exceptionally well there in the past few years, should not we redouble our efforts to work with the markets of Latin America which basically have a European trading tradition and look towards us with extreme good will?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is expert in that area and will know that the last decade has been something of a miracle decade for Latin America in terms of democracy, fiscal and monetary disciplines, stability and free trade. He is right to say that we should be putting more effort into that area, and the Government are doing just that. I know that my hon. Friend has attended at least one of the events with which we have been involved. He is quite right—21 per cent. growth in one year is not good enough.

Middle East Peace Process

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is planning to support the peace process in the middle east. [14953]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We will continue to provide full political and economic support for the peace process, including through efficient and effective delivery of our aid package of £82 million over the three years 1994–97.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister reaffirm that it is of fundamental importance to the peace process that the people in the area—particularly the people of Gaza—see some immediate and tangible benefits resulting from that process, as estimates of unemployment in Gaza range from 43 per cent. to as much as 70 per cent? Will the Minister redouble his efforts with the international community to ensure that an economic package is produced which provides tangible assistance to the people of Gaza?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and that is why one important element of the programme that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced, by way of new money when he visited Gaza, was directed to labour-intensive schemes and projects. That is also why my right hon. Friend took with him a number of United


Kingdom business men, some of whom are interested in developing commercial and manufacturing processes in Gaza. That is an important way forward.

Mr. Allason: While the presence of British police officers in the Gaza strip to train Palestine Liberation Organisation personnel has clearly been a success, does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that there is widespread concern about the size of the aid package which was recently announced? Can he assure the House that there will be close supervision of that money, to ensure that it is spent on precisely the aid projects for which it is intended?

Mr. Hogg: Yes. One of the great difficulties which we have faced is that the Palestinians have been slow in developing mechanisms for identifying worthwhile projects and for controlling expenditure. We welcome the progress that they have made in that area, but more work needs to be done. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need for a careful auditing of expenditure.

UNAVEM III Forces

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the preparedness of UNAVEM III forces to keep the peace in Angola when called upon. [14955]

Mr. Hurd: Following the report of his special envoy and the undertakings given by the parties, the Secretary-General announced on 27 March that the UN would proceed with preparations to deploy the logistic and support elements for UNAVEM III in keeping with its resolution 876.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement told the House on 23 February, we have agreed in principle to provide a 600-strong logistics battalion to help the initial deployment of infantry units provided by other member states.

Mr. Worthington: After many years, there is a fragile peace in Angola, but there is great apprehension that the UN will follow in Angola previous failures with its peacekeeping forces in Somalia and Rwanda, where it took many months to deploy forces. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that those UN peacekeeping forces will be deployed the moment they are called for?

Mr. Hurd: A guarantee is not really required from us, as we have declared our willingness and are preparing accordingly. The guarantee is required from the parties concerned. Despite what I just said, the deployment which is envisaged can be completed and fulfilled only if the parties on the ground fulfil their commitments.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend seen the problems that the Ministry of Defence now appears to have in recruiting people into the Army and the fact that we seem to be making soldiers redundant and have low numbers of people in the forces? Is he satisfied that, when we make commitments to the United Nations and other peacekeeping operations, we shall have the right number of troops in place and that the morale of those troops will be satisfactory? Will he take urgent steps to talk to the Ministry of Defence about the position in the Army, which my constituents find troubling?

Mr. Hurd: It is not really a matter for me, as my hon. Friend knows. My perception of it, however, is that, once

decisions announced in Front Line First have been carried through, our armed forces will enter a period of stability—their force levels will remain and their equipment will improve. They can then look forward to a period of stability during which we can respond where we think it wise and necessary in our own interest to the kind of appeals that we are discussing.

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the nuclear weapon state signatories to the non-proliferation treaty define their nuclear strike capacity in terms of explosive firepower. [14956]

Mr. David Davis: The United Kingdom and the United States have released information on the total explosive yield of their nuclear weapon stockpiles. In May 1994, President Mitterrand gave figures for the numbers of French operational nuclear warheads. Neither Russia nor China has, to our knowledge, made official statements on the size of their stockpiles by any measure.

Mr. Cook: Is it true that the British Government have always justified their retention of the nuclear deterrent, despite the fact that they are a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, on the basis that they must retain a minimum nuclear deterrent? What is meant by minimum? Do we need to be able to obliterate a small country or to take out a medium-sized country? How much of the world do we need to be able to devastate in order to justify retention of such weapons?

Mr. Davis: It is interesting to see the resurrection of CND on the Labour Back Benches. Since 1990, we have reduced our nuclear weapons by some 25 per cent., to what we judge to be a minimal level. That has involved halving free-fall weapons, the complete non-deployment of surface maritime weapons, and a self-imposed restriction on the number of missile warheads used on Trident. That is a reduction of some 25 per cent. in explosive power, which is what we consider a minimum level of deterrence—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) does not believe in deterrence at all.

Mr. Gallie: Is it not true that the benefit of nuclear weapons is their deterrent effect not, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), their take-out effect?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. The collapse of the Soviet Union has led to information being available that shows that our stance on cruise missiles and Trident, contrary to the Labour partys view throughout the 1980s, was one factor that led to the Soviet Unions collapse and the end of the cold war.

Bosnia

Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of peace negotiations in Bosnia. [14957]

Mr. Hurd: With our Contact Group colleagues we are still working hard to secure a negotiated settlement. We have reached a critical stage, with the security situation on the ground deteriorating. The Contact Group met in


London this week and is urging all sides to respect the cessation of hostilities agreement, and calling on the Bosnian Serbs to accept the Contact Group plan as a starting point for negotiations. We are working hard for peace in Bosnia. Our forces and aid effort in Bosnia have won deserved praise from the Bosnian Government for their effectiveness and dedication. We want them to continue their work but, as we have often said before, our forces can remain only if they can carry out their tasks at an acceptable level of risk.

Ms Hodge: If and when we eventually reach a peace settlement to end the conflict, will the Secretary of State confirm that that will include guarantees on human rights? Will he, in particular, confirm that there will be guarantees that refugees and victims of ethnic cleansing can return to their homes without the danger of persecution and a guarantee that the international community will pursue those guilty of war crimes?

Mr. Hurd: Procedures about war crimes are in hand; that is established. It is relatively easy to negotiate paper guarantees but relatively difficult to put them into practice. We must find a way in which that war can be brought to an end. That will depend on acceptance by all the parties concerned—by all the combatants. We can buttress that from outside, but the essence is not the guarantees that we draft from outside but the will for peace inside that country.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary will have seen the statement on Monday by the UN spokesman in Sarajevo that the UN will use air power and limited strikes if the Bosnian Serbs attack civilians in the safe havens. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, once that threat has been made, it must be carried out if civilians are attacked? Is not the lesson of Bosnia that every time that our bluff is called it weakens our authority? Will he take the opportunity to express his resolve that we will not back down this time?

Mr. Hurd: The principle is clear. It has been clear for a long time that NATO air strikes may be called in by the UN—that is perfectly true—and it has been used to good effect. However, it is no good generalising in the House as to when and where that should be done. The circumstances in which that can effectively be done must depend on the judgment of NATO and of the UN commanders on the ground, including our own General Smith.

Consular Service

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to the consular service in recent years; and if he will make a statement. [14958]

Mr. Baldry: Consular work is a front-line activity for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Our strong commitment to providing a high quality service to British nationals in distress overseas remains consistent in the face of increasing demand.

Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that in many ways the consular personnel are the unsung heroes of the diplomatic service? Can my hon. Friend assure the

House that the representatives of the travel industry are effectively telling British travellers what consular services are available to them when they travel abroad?

Mr. Baldry: Our consular service does first-class work throughout the world. Nearly 9 million British nationals live overseas and about 34 million Britons travel abroad each year. Each year, we help about 15,000 Britons in difficulties throughout the world. I am pleased to say that we work closely with the travel industry to ensure that, before going overseas, people can have objective and fair advice about the destinations to which they are traveling.
We are grateful for the help and co-operation that the travel industry, the Federation of Tour Operators and the Association of British Travel Agents are giving us in ensuring that all travellers overseas can have safe and happy holidays.

Mr. Flynn: Is it not symptomatic of the antiquated nature of our consular and diplomatic services that a constituent reports to me that in the audiovisual room in Tanzania the only two videos available are one of a royal wedding and one of country pursuits in Devon? [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear.] Even after the cuts made in Paris, is it not ridiculous to pour millions of pounds into those prestigious consuls and embassies while in countries of great importance, such as the Baltic states, we have only one person in each country? When will the diplomatic service enter the present century?

Mr. Baldry: Practically every point that the hon. Gentleman made is wrong. He professes to be an expert on the Baltic states; we actually have three embassies in the Baltic states. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seeks to visit a few more embassies and posts overseas. If he does so, he will witness the excellent work that is being carried out by our diplomatic staff and consuls and ambassadors throughout the world. It falls badly from the mouths of Opposition Members when so many of our diplomatic staff are working hard for Britains interests, often in very difficult circumstances, throughout the world.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend emphasise to the British consuls and other diplomats in the Baltic states and in the other former state trading nations how valuable they are in guiding British business men through that labyrinth?

Mr. Baldry: Yes, I suspect that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of business men in the UK today who would give testament to the help and guidance that they have received from British embassies and high commissions throughout the world in winning further orders for Britain. As a nation, we export more per head than Japan and the United States. We are assisted in that work by our diplomatic effort throughout the world.

Ethiopia

Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights record in Ethiopia; and if he will make a statement. [14960]

Mr. Baldry: We are concerned about the human rights situation in Ethiopia and take every opportunity to stress to the transitional government the importance of making progress in this area.

Mr. Timms: Is the Minister aware that Amnesty International says that there is an emerging problem of disappearances among Government opponents in Ethiopia? Has he seen the statement issued in London on 15 March by the Ethiopian asylum support group expressing its concern that human rights violations are spreading from the political to the religious, social and cultural spheres? What representations will the British Government make to the transitional Government in Ethiopia about those matters?

Mr. Baldry: I am aware of Amnesty Internationals concerns and I have seen the report. I know that a large number of Ethiopians live in the hon. Gentlemans constituency. Due to the Ethiopian civil war, we operated an exceptional leave policy from late 1980 to April 1993. We think that the situation in Ethiopia has now improved to the point where the policy of granting exceptional leave to remain can be discontinued.
Of course, the Home Office will deal with all applications on their individual merits, but it may assist the hon. Gentlemans constituents to know that no Ethiopians who have benefited already from the exceptional leave policy will be required to leave the country when their existing leave expires, unless there are particular reasons in individual cases for asking them to do so.

Points of Order

Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is reported in this mornings edition of The Independent that, before he became a Cabinet Minister, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken)—to whom I have given notice of my intention to raise this matter—was director of a company which exported arms to Iran, contrary to the Government embargo. Has the right hon. Member offered to make a statement to the House to the effect that he observed due diligence at that time, and that he therefore broke no commands?

Madam Speaker: The answer to the hon. Gentlemans question is no; I have not been informed that any hon. Member is seeking to make a personal statement.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Monday, I met the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) at Darlington station, and he told me that he had returned from Stockton-on-Tees where he had made a visit to the Stockton, North constituency. Yesterday, I read in the newspapers that he had in fact visited my constituency, without giving prior notice to me in accordance with the courtesies that you expect to be extended to fellow Members of Parliament. I have given the right hon. Gentleman notice of my intention to raise this matter as a point of order today. Will you reiterate your guidance to Members of Parliament about the matter?

Madam Speaker: The entire House knows the views I hold on the matter. I find myself having to repeat them several times a week, and that should be entirely unnecessary. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) should have informed the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that he intended to attend a public engagement in the constituency of the hon. Member. It is to be regretted that the right hon. Member for Copeland apparently did not do so.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you are keenly aware of your role as custodian of the integrity of our democratic system. In recent years, many of the powers of your office which your predecessors exercised have been usurped by other undemocratic, unelected bodies outside the Parliament. Yesterday, one of my constituents was removed from the organisation Health Promotion Wales, because he was a whistleblower and had exposed corruption within that body. Is it not time that you exercised your powers and took back from those unaccountable, unelected bodies the powers that should be yours and Parliaments?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seems to be giving me powers which I do not possess. If the House wishes to invest me with those powers, I will be quite prepared to accept such responsibilities. Until that time, I shall carry out the powers that I already have in the House.

Sir Donald Thompson: I have in my hand a statement completely exonerating my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), but it would be out of order for me to read it.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. I have already dealt with the matter.

Mr. Andrew Miller: As you will have noticed, Madam Speaker, at Question Time today I have been pursuing matters relating to the arms trade with Burma. My point of order for you is not about that, as the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), replied to my question courteously and in great detail.
My concern is that the Department of Trade and Industry replied to me in a very negative way, saying that it cannot provide us with information, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, but as you know, from time to time the Department of Trade and Industry is the first to release such information to the press. I know that you deprecate information being released in that way. Is there any mechanism by which we can get some information on this most important matter?

Madam Speaker: I am not totally clear to what the hon. Gentleman is alluding, but I am concerned to see that, when information is available, it is made available to the House through individual hon. Members. I should be grateful, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman would leave with my office all the information he has, so that I might examine it properly.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Have you had any request from the Prime Minister to make a statement about what steps he plans to take in respect of the involvement of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in selling arms to Iran against the embargo? It is not a matter for him, but one for the Prime Minister as to whether he can remain in the Cabinet.

Madam Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have Prime Ministers Questions tomorrow, and if hon. Members are lucky enough to catch my eye, they may be able to put that question direct to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Tony Marlow: You will remember that, not very long ago, we used to have 20 minutes set aside for questions on what was then the European Community and is now the European Union. The situation has changed, in that, as Delors said, the time will soon come when 80 per cent. of political issues are decided at the European level rather than—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Do be quiet. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Marlow, let me hear what you have to say.

Mr. Marlow: I do not often find difficulty making myself heard. That was the situation. Now Europe is a more significant political issue. I know there are many ways in which it could be discussed and debated, but it is very important that the Executive comes under cross-examination and questioning on this subject. I think today we have had one substantive question on Europe. It may be that that is the way Members want it, but there is a certain amount of chance as to whether these questions get brought forward.
If there were a separate time for asking questions on Europe, I am quite sure that right hon. and hon. Members would put down those questions, so that the matter could be properly considered. Would it be possible that we could consider bringing back the procedures we had several years ago, so that we can focus in Question Time more directly on the European issue?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I do not deal with the rota, but I noticed that there was only one substantive question today on Europe. The hon. Gentleman is sitting very close to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and he might like to take the matter up with him.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I was concerned to see on todays Order Paper my name appended to a number of dubious amendments to the Atomic Energy Authority Bill. I am sure that that was inadvertent, and I am equally sure it is just as embarrassing to the hon. Member for Coventry North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), with whom I get on very well. I am sure that he would be the first to say that, other than our surnames, we have very little in common. I wonder whether you would have a word with the relevant authorities, Madam Speaker, to ensure extra vigilance in future, so that this embarrassing faux pas cannot occur again.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) is serving on the Standing Committee, so obviously there has been some misunderstanding and some misprinting. The hon. Gentleman has cleared up todays matter, and I shall do what I can to ensure that it does not occur in future.

BILL PRESENTED

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. John Austin-Walker, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Jimmy Hood and Rev. Martin Smyth presented a Bill to make provision in relation to persons disqualified, or subject to proceedings for disqualification, under section 46 of the National Health Service Act 1977; to make provision about the constitution of the tribunal under that section; to make corresponding provision for Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 31 March, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

Eradication of Mink

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to eradicate mink from the United Kingdom.
A brown little face with whiskers, a grave round face with the same twinkle in its eye that had first attracted his notice. Small neat ears and thick silky hair. It was the Water Rat—
and not a mink, as might be expected. Ratty in The Wind in the Willows, as described in that quotation, was in fact a water vole: a vegetarian mammal much loved since Kenneth Grahame wrote his book, and once common throughout the country. But no longer.
Last summer, I canoed from Blaby to Westminster with my brother to raise money for a hospice in Leicestershire. We travelled 137 miles, mostly on the Grand Union canal; we did not see a single water vole. Having grown up not far from that canal and having been used to seeing water voles in abundance, I made some inquiries, and discovered that water voles were being wiped out by mink.
It is a fair bet that most hon. Members who are present, and most people in the country, have never seen a wild mink. They are not easy to spot, like pollution or visible damage to our countryside; but the fact that we do not see them does not mean that they are not causing serious harm to our wildlife.
They are rapidly destroying the water vole population, as well as having a significant effect on game and coarse fishing. They will kill water fowl, particularly moorhens, and any ground-nesting birds; they are also skilled at climbing trees. Indeed, it is alleged that they have destroyed significant numbers of kingfishers in their nests: kingfishers live near and beside water. As they reach offshore islands, we should recognise the impact that this alien introduction will have on the population of sea birds, including gannets and puffins. They also pose a growing threat to poultry farms, and have been seen attacking lambs.
The impact of the mink on our indigenous wildlife is not appreciated because it is not seen, but it is neverthess immensely serious. Of particular note is the excellent study of the distribution and changing status of the water vole, published in 1993 and carried out by the Vincent Wildlife Trust. The water vole is the optimum prey size for mink, and has developed no escape mechanism against the predator.
The authors noted that the link between mink and the decline in the number of water voles is now incontrovertible, and pointed out that the mink had exterminated the muskrat from several sites in North America, and was thus quite capable of doing such damage here. They stated:
The effect of mink on the water vole is serious and may well provide the final straw causing extinction of the species in many areas.
Mink were brought to this country from North America for fur farming before the second world war. By 1962, there were some 700 fur farms, many of which were run from sheds in back yards. Inevitably, some mink escaped. Some small-scale fur farmers, giving up their businesses, released their stock—and there has been the equally astonishing sight of so-called animal welfare groups deliberately releasing the animal into the wild.
In 1957, the first breeding wild mink were positively identified in Devon; now, not 40 years later, there are reckoned to be 110,000 wild mink, which have spread throughout most of the country and have even succeeded in reaching the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides by swimming across the ocean from the mainland.
If we leave aside the possibility of pumas on Bodmin moor, the mink is the only alien predatory mammal that man has been foolish enough to introduce into this country. We currently hear a good deal about the New Zealand flatworm and the effect that it is having on earthworms and our ecology as a whole. Perhaps we should look more closely at the effect of alien introductions into New Zealand; but my choice of comparable man-made ecological disaster would be Ascension island—once known as Bird island—where rats came with sailors, who introduced cats to catch the rats, but the cats ate all the ground-nesting birds. The island is no longer known as Bird island.
Man has created another potential ecological disaster with mink in this country. In Leicestershire, in my constituency, water voles are now scarce on the River Soar, as was pointed out earlier this month in the Leicester Mercury. That newspaper is running a campaign to clean up the River Soar; what a tragedy it is that water voles are unlikely to benefit. Nearby, mink have been seen in the middle of Market Harborough on the River Welland, and they are certainly present on the Grand Union canal.
The Government recognised in the Mink (Keeping) Order 1992 that it is desirable to destroy any mink at large. The question arises whether it is possible to eradicate feral mink from the United Kingdom. I believe that it is possible, and so, with more authority, does the director of the Institute of Zoology. The success of the coypu control organisation that eradicated the coypu from the UK should be studied carefully by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
There are many similarities between coypu and mink. The coypu was imported for its fur—nutria—in the 1920s. Many escaped, and the population rose to a maximum of 200,000 in the wild in the late 1950s. That figure was dramatically reduced by the cold winter of 1962 and by a trapping campaign in the 1960s. The Ministry of Agriculture started a new campaign in April 1981, employing 24 trappers. The coypu was eradicated in six years, by 1987.
Man, the minks only predator in the UK, currently undertakes localised trapping and catches several thousand a year. It is appropriate to mention and to pay tribute to mink hunts, of which there are 20. They disrupt breeding programmes, and have a significant local impact. A successful eradication programme would inevitably end the sport of mink hunting, which should appeal at least to many who supported the recent anti-hunting Bill. It would lead also to a ban on the distasteful practice of farming mink for their fur.
If we are to eradicate mink from the United Kingdom, the danger of further escapes must be removed. The last recorded was in 1989. There are now only 12 registered mink farms in England, compared with 52 six years ago.
My Bill proposes that, acknowledging the desirability of conserving our native wildlife by eradicating an alien predator, the Government establish and fund a research

project. There has been far too little research, and the project would study the mink, its distribution and the feasibility of its eradication. The project team could make recommendations on how best to eradicate the mink. It would gather support from many quarters, which might assist funding an eradication programme.
The most effective way of destroying mink is to catch them in live traps and then shoot them. That also means that no other animals are harmed by the trapping. The project would almost certainly want to run a trial eradication programme in a specific local area, such as a river system. My own preference would be the Isle of Lewis. If proved to work there, it could also work throughout the British isles. Such a research project would demonstrate the feasibility of eradicating mink, and also show that costs need not be exorbitant.
My Bill is a conservation measure, to conserve our native wildlife—much of which is threatened by the foolishness of human behaviour in introducing mink. It will be supported by all who really care about our wildlife and countryside, and who appreciate the serious nature of the situation. Recently, there have been several excellent articles on the matter in The Times and The Sunday Telegraph, and in The Sun by my noble Friend Lord Tebbit, who was once famously and unfairly likened in this Chamber to a semi-house-trained polecat.
I considered calling my Bill the Water Vole Conservation Bill. Some hon. Members may oppose it because they fail to understand the damage done to our ecology by feral mink. To them, I quote Kenneth Grahams Ratty, whose descendants are most affected by the problem:
But dont you see what it means—you dull-witted animals?
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: When The Wind in the Willows was written, there were no feral minks on the river bank. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), but I am not convinced by the case that he made. I have read a range of studies of the impact of the feral mink on the countryside, and I have reached different conclusions from the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that it is feasible to contemplate the eradication of feral mink, on economic or ecological grounds.
During the 1970s, the Ministry of Agriculture decided to cease its efforts to control mink. The hon. Gentleman was right to remind the House that mink were imported to North America for fur farming, which must be one of the most distasteful of the many abuses perpetrated by humans on animals. It was the escapes from those fur farms that led to the establishment of wild mink in the British countryside.
The way that fur breeders turned mink out into the countryside when the fur trade collapsed in the 1950s represented the height of irresponsibility. I agree with the hon. Member for Blaby that the animal liberation people who turn mink loose in the countryside are doing no favours to the mink or to the native inhabitants, but it is worth reminding the House that there are still mink and arctic fox farms in this country. Seeing the wretched state in which mink are kept in some of those places makes it easy to realise how quickly they can escape. Some of the people who farm mink make Arthur Daley seem like Lord Curzon.
Mink should never have been imported into this country. Those who profited from that are responsible for todays problem.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned coypu. I think that the comparison with the eradication of coypu from parts of East Anglia is not meaningful. Trapping coypu involved professional trappers; and eradication did not take seven years, either. My information is that it took about 15.
If mink are creating local problems in some areas, as they are, they can be dealt with by humane trapping. Mink are rather like Back Benchers—always curious—so it is easy to trap them. Alternatively, mink-proof fencing can be set up. The Ministry of Agriculture can give plenty of advice to the hon. Member for Blaby and others who have problems of this sort.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Vincent Wildlife Trust report in the context of the impact of mink on water voles, referring to that impact as the last straw. But he did not tell the House the other reasons for the decline of the population of water voles: habitat loss, changes in waterway management, and pollution. Certainly the mink came along and put additional pressure on the voles, but it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention these other points in the study.
Other studies have shown that otter hunting too had an impact on the increasing number of mink. Wherever otters breed, there are lower numbers of mink. Many other studies have shown that mink do not present the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes. There are ways of controlling feral mink populations in parts of the country where they might cause a problem.
Mink hunting is unacceptable and thoroughly ineffective. It is becoming the blood sport of the summer that fills the gap between the end of one fox hunting

season and the beginning of the next. The one thing the British countryside does not need is another bunch of bloodthirsty sadists in waders damaging our river banks. No method of controlling numbers should be turned into a sport for perverts with a bloodlust. The people who hunt mink are far worse than their quarry. Indeed, they are the same people who wiped out the native otter.
I am not convinced that the mink constitutes the ecological threat to the countryside that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, and I shall oppose his motion.
MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business).

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that the very fact that this Division is taking place will mean that valuable time is taken out of the debate on education, in which many hon. Members wish to take part, but which the Labour party is taking time to prevent from starting?

Madam Speaker: I should have thought that that was rather obvious.

Question agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Rupert Allason, Mr. Bernard Jenkin and Mr. Iain Duncan Smith.

ERADICATION OF MINK

Mr. Andrew Robathan accordingly presented a Bill to eradicate mink from the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 92.1]

Opposition Day

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Education Cuts

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I have also imposed a limit of 10 minutes on all speeches by Back-Bench Members today, as a great number of hon. Members are seeking to take part.

Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move,
That this House asks the Government to reconsider its position on the Teachers Pay Review Body award for 1995–96, because of the impact of increased pupil numbers, and the threat to standards, opportunity and achievement from the shortfall in funding experienced in many local authority areas and the vast majority of schools in England and Wales.
The time has come for Conservative Members to make up their minds whether they are in favour of saving the standard and opportunity for education for children in their schools and communities, or whether they are in favour of saving their own skins by attempting to salt away cash for a tax bribe in the general election.
On this occasion, they cannot win, because if they take away money, as they are doing, if they insist that tax cuts in November and possibly in 1996 are to be preferred to putting resources into maintaining the number of teachers, into keeping down class sizes in their schools, they will be punished as surely as night follows day by an electorate who are sick of duplicity, of people pretending that they are interested in childrens education, in what is happening in their schools, and then turning up in the House and voting the opposite way.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: Not at the moment.
We are not asking Conservative Members to condemn their Government and their Cabinet. The British people are doing that effectively enough as it is. We are asking Conservative Members merely to request their Government to think again. Every Conservative Member who votes today against our motion, who votes down the opportunity for the Cabinet to give a second thought to what is happening to children in our schools throughout the country, will surely reap their reward, because we will ensure that every newspaper, local radio station and elector in his or her area knows which way that Member voted.
Do Conservative Members back the Secretary of State for Education, who whispers in dark corners to education corespondents that she cares about what is happening in schools and that she has been fighting a battle with her colleagues in Cabinet? Do they do that, or do they back those who believe that she has had enough?

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in Leicestershire, Labour councillors supported Liberal Democrat councillors in producing a budget that will mean cuts, whereas the Conservative councillors on Leicestershire county council produced a

budget which would have increased spending on education by 2.85 per cent.? The increase is down to just over 2 per cent. because of a Labour-Liberal Democrat budget. What will the hon. Gentleman tell the newspapers about the way that councillors in Leicestershire voted?

Mr. Blunkett: People will say, Do we believe those who have inflicted these cuts from the centre on every county and on every school in the country, or do we believe parents, teachers and governors who know what is happening in their schools? It is not Labour and Liberal councillors who have inflicted these cuts: it is Conservative Members and their Cabinet.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I will not give way.
The Secretary of State knows the truth. She is kind, well-meaning and very likeable. Unfortunately, she is totally ineffective. She is overridden and overruled, a schoolmistress who has turned into the bedevilled schoolgirl. The House does not need to take my word for that: it can take the word of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who only last week said:
Gillian is making excellent progress and a satisfactory amount of finance is on offer.
Gillian is not making satisfactory progress: she is not making any progress at all. She has pleaded with her Cabinet colleagues for more money. While the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade wring their hands and tell the people of Oxfordshire that they are in favour of looking after their children, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who are in command.

Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman speaks about progress. Perhaps he could help the debate to make progress. How much money would the Opposition donate for the proposition that he puts to the House? It would help the House to know how much money the Opposition would like to spend to replace the so-called cuts in education.

Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. Lady speaks about so-called cuts in education. That shows no sense of reality about what is happening in the classroom. [Interruption.] I will answer the question, which is more than Conservative Members ever do on the radio—when they are not too frightened go on radio to answer questions about their policies. I will take questions and lectures from Conservative Members when they tell me about the £744 million that they spent on changing the national curriculum, changing tests and bedeviling education with turmoil for six years.
I have made it absolutely clear, and I repeat, that, when an independent review body report is accepted by a Government who have abolished negotiations between employers and employees, they have an absolute obligation, moral and political, to pay for it. We would have paid for it from moneys that the Government have cut from the projected expenditure on education that they promised at the general election. They promised tax cuts, but they increased taxes. They promised to increase public spending, but they are cutting it for every child in the land.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend is correct when he says that people out there know precisely who is to blame. On Saturday, 20,000 people went on a


march through central London. Most of them had never been on a demonstration before. They included parents, school kids, and people who had never been to London. They know who is guilty in this case.
Another 5,000 from Derbyshire have been demonstrating today. To a man and a woman, they know who the guilty people are. It would be relatively easy to find the money if we started using the £35 billion that has been spent keeping more than 4 million people idle, and if we started taking back the £50 billion that has been given to the richest 10 per cent. in tax cuts. That is the way to improve our education system. Let us have smaller classes and more teachers employed.

Mr. Blunkett: I always welcome the powerful interventions of my hon. Friend. He is backed today by 3,000 people from Derbyshire—[Interruption.] No, I said that he was backed today by 3,000 people. [Interruption.] He is backed by thousands of people from Derbyshire. I would send Conservative Members out there to count them but, unfortunately, not many of them would be up to it.
Let me quote not Labour Members, parents, governors or teachers, but the words of Conservative Members. What about the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), a former Minister with responsibility for education? Four former Ministers with responsibility for education have publicly announced that they believe that the Government should think again. We believe that even the Secretary of States predecessor thinks that she should think again. Some of us suspect that the right hon. Lady thinks that she should think again, but she cannot get enough support from Conservative Back Benchers.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: No. The hon. Gentleman should listen to the quote from the hon. Member for Wantage, who said:
But in my view, the Government response to the teachers pay award is quite indefensible.
No Labour Member could put it more clearly than that; nor could we put it more clearly that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who today repeated on Channel 4 that he felt that he could not vote with the Government tonight unless more money was made available to his county of Warwickshire.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: Which of those wonderful people shall I give way to? I give way to the hon. Member over there on the right.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Paul Marland, who has been standing a long time.

Mr. Paul Marland: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the bind that Gloucestershire schools find themselves in is the result of the profligacy of Liberal and Labour councillors on Gloucestershire county council, and that debt servicing is the third biggest item in that councils budget? That is why the council is threatening to impose cuts on schools.

Mr. Blunkett: The response will be clear and decisive in both the local elections on 5 May and in

the general election. People will deal clearly with Conservative Members who wring their hands and wash them of their responsibility, including their responsibility for other peoples children.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I shall not give way. I have given way sufficiently for the time being.
Conservative Members, and certainly the right hon. Ladys colleagues in the Cabinet, would have understood what she was talking about in her famous letter telling them what the results of their actions would be if their children were in state education at state schools. The more people send their children to state education and state schools, the more they understand what is going on. If I let them in, some of the Conservative Members who are desperate to intervene might tell us immediately where their children go to school, where they went to school, or what sort of cuts their children are experiencing. This is not a game; it is about childrens education. This is about every parent in every school that is affected feeling the result of Tory party policy. This is about those heads and governors trying to carry out their responsibilities having to sit down in the next three months and decide which teacher, which care assistant, which technician and which school secretary should be given a redundancy notice. That is what it is about: real people and real children in education up and down the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman over there.

Madam Speaker: I think it was the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Both my daughters are in state schools in Kent, How would the hon. Gentleman justify funds being taken away from that school and all other schools in Kent by the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled county council, which has spent between £100,000 and £250,000 on propaganda to try to talk parents out of voting for what they have always wanted for their schoolsgrant-maintained status?

Mr. Blunkett: I just wonder what the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation is doing with public money provided by the Department for Education. It has spent £250,000 in the past year on hospitality alone for those campaigning for grant-maintained status, including providing hotel accommodation and travelling costs for heads and teachers from grant-maintained schools, who clearly have time to travel the country persuading others.
After the intervention last time from a Kent Member about how people were spending money on take-away meals in the epitome of the competitive tendering, out-of-house catering of the future, I will take no more interventions from hon. Members from Kent.
Self-delusion is now commonplace in a Cabinet that is completely split down the middle on education.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Let us take the Prime Ministers words on 16 March. He claimed in the House that there were
two administrators for every three teachers in education.—[Official Report, 16 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 1021.]
This is a Prime Minister who did not pass anything at school, never mind the 11-plus.

Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: No, I am making a point that I intend to finish.
The Prime Minister claimed on 16 March during Prime Ministers questions that there were two administrators for every three teachers. We have checked that out: 109,000 of the non-teaching staff turned out to be people employed directly under the devolution of budgets under local management of schools as school caretakers, clerical workers, care assistants and technicians; 150,000 turned out to be manual staff such as those working on school meals and on grass cutting; and just 57,000 of the 316,000 turned out to be people working in the central departments of education authorities.
That figure includes educational psychologists, people working on truancy and educational welfare and youth officers. One in seven who themselves are not administrators turn out to be the result of the mathematical genius that the Prime Minister obviously employs in the Cabinet Office.
We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is geographically and historically challenged; we know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is ethically challenged; and we know that the Prime Minister is mathematically challenged. They cannot add up, and they cannot tell the truth. [Interruption.] I will not give way, because I want to make one further point on the statistics used by the Secretary of State.
Last week, she claimed that the spending on children since 1979 had increased by 50 per cent. The real figure, because I have checked it, is a real-terms increase of 4 per cent., with a 5 per cent. cut in secondary education, before the £200-a-head cut in standard spending assessment this year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A moment ago, the House heard the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) make comments from the Dispatch Box to the effect that senior members of the Government could not tell the truth. I distinctly heard him say that. I ask through you, Madam Speaker, whether that is a proper use of words. Does it not transgress the rules of the House?

Madam Speaker: I was engaged at the Chair and did not hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside. But I am sure—[Interruption.] Just a moment. I am sure that, if he did utter those words, he will come to the Dispatch Box, say so and withdraw them.

Mr. Blunkett: I take your ruling entirely, Madam Speaker. What I was clearly referring to was the statistical truth of the misinterpretation of the facts which were being dealt with by the Prime Minister, and the obvious

statistical difficulty that the Secretary of State herself has with similar information. The Secretary of State talked about the budget for books and equipment having gone up by 55 per cent. It turns out to be less than half that figure. I am using statistics from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—

Madam Speaker: Order. If I find tomorrow in Hansard that the hon. Member for Brightside has used language in this House which I find unacceptable, I shall return to the matter tomorrow. There seems to be some dispute now, but I must leave it until I see the written report.

Mr. Blunkett: Let me help with the Hansard report by making it clear that it is not always the case that those who do not present the truth deliberately lie. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not mean to tell a statistical inexactitude when he misled the House on 16 March.
What of the Secretary of States claim that the repair and maintenance budget for schools had risen by 15 per cent. per pupil? The actual sum, according to CIPFA, has gone down from £84 per pupil to £83 per pupil while the Conservatives have been in office. The position is entirely different.
The position is also entirely different over whether Britain spends more money than many of its European and OECD counterparts. The Secretary of State, on radio last week, claimed that France spent less of its national income on education than Britain. It is not true. France spent 5.4 per cent. of its gross domestic product and Britain spent 5.3 per cent. The Secretary of State claimed—

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: No, I shall not.
The Secretary of State claimed that the Netherlands spent less than the United Kingdom. In fact, it spent 6.8 per cent. of GDP, which, of course, for anyone who can calculate, is 1.5 per cent. more than the United Kingdom spent. Canada and Sweden and the United States all spent more than Britain as a proportion of their GDP on education.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who has been very patient.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in Kent, the SSA per secondary school pupil is £13 less than it was in 1992–93? What is more, rather than cutting spending, the council has increased education funding by £11 million. It will still find, therefore, that it has to cut £8 million from areas of spending which include discretionary awards, schools building maintenance, schools delegated funds and management savings. I do not think that that ties up with what the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) had to say.

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: Where is he now?] I am sure that one of the hon. Members who represents Kent is here to be enlightened and to take on board what my hon. Friend said.
The simple truth of the matter this afternoon is whether the British people believe a discredited and enfeebled Government, or whether they believe parents, governors and teachers in their own communities about what is happening around them. I presume that the Secretary of


State was being honest when she sent her letter to Cabinet colleagues claiming what the result would be of the kind of settlement that the Government eventually inflicted on schools. I believe that she meant that there would be 7,000 to 10,000 redundancies among teachers and that class sizes would shoot up. I believe that she knew that in many schools, as at the Nicholas Chamberlain school in Bedworth, Warwickshire, there would be up to 10 redundancies for teaching staff.
I believe that the Secretary of State knows what the impact of the spending cuts will be, and I challenge her publicly to ask her Cabinet colleagues to think again about the settlement about which she warned, and which she said would mean cuts in the schools that we have been talking about. I challenge her to be honest and to say what she really thinks about the way in which her education policies are impinging on the British people. Otherwise, she will be a fairy tale turned into a nightmare—an Edward Scissorhands who ends up cutting, rather than being praised for having overturned the previous Secretary of States policies.
I presume that the right hon. Lady and her colleagues will have the temerity to acknowledge that what we say is true. It is true that spending in general should be aimed at improving standards and opportunities. There is no better way of giving children the necessary prior attainments and start in life than to ensure that all three and four-year-olds whose parents so wish have a place at a nursery school.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for improved nursery education, but does he agree that, throughout the United Kingdom, parents who have children with recognised educational needs know that not enough is being spent to help those children to achieve their real potential?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly what the debate is all about.
I gather that the Secretary of State has hidden talents and does a good imitation of Baroness Thatcher; she is a sort of Rory Bremner of the House of Commons. Perhaps she would care to mimic Baroness Thatcher by committing herself, as Baroness Thatcher did in 1972, to providing a nursery place, not a voucher, for every child whose parents want one.
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, under the Conservatives in the late 1970s, Kent county council undertook a major study of the impact of the voucher system in nursery education? Kent spent £9 million of public money on that experiment, and then abandoned it.

Mr. Dunn: You are joking.

Mr. Blunkett: I am not joking, and the people of Kent are not joking when they recall what the experiment cost them.
Yes, it cost £9 million to undertake a prolonged experiment in one part of Kent. The fact that Conservative Members do not know what happened is a good reason why they should start to listen and to learn, instead of talking about inflicting vouchers on the rest of Britain although they failed in one of the authorities that the Conservatives controlled.
The Secretary of State knows perfectly well what the dangers of vouchers are. She has said as much, as was reported by The Independent on 19 October last year. She

knows that the voucher proposal would be a disaster, because she understands basic economics, even though her Cabinet colleagues may not.
Where supply does not exceed demand, a voucher system can assist and provide choice and diversity only for those who can top the voucher up with their own money. If the voucher system can provide enough cash for a place for every nursery-age child who needs one, we shall end up with transaction costs that increase bureaucracy without creating one extra place.
If we want to hear an independent view, we should ask the commercial business director of Kindercare, which is moving in from the United States. He told newspapers only a week ago that the firm was targeting Britain because of the high cost of nursery provision in this country compared with every other nation in the European Union and because of the sparsity of places here in comparison with our European counterparts. This is an area ripe for commercial development because the Government will not fulfil the pledge made by the Prime Minister at last years Conservative party conference that the Government would provide nursery places for four-year-olds.
Where is the money? Where is the promise? What is the target? What sort of places is the Secretary of State proposing to provide? What commitment is there from a Secretary of State who wrote to her own colleagues recently to suggest—really, to demand—that they should berate Labour and Liberal Democrat authorities for providing nursery education? Item 2 of her letter asks her hon. Friends to discover to what extent the local education authority is expanding non-statutory services—for example, services for under-fives—at the expense of statutory education services.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: That has brought a crowd of Conservative Members to their feet.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The previous leader of the Labour party came to St Marys hall in Ealing and to Northolt on April 29 last year and said that, if the Labour party won Ealing borough council, it would provide a nursery place for every child of nursery age. That was a promise. The Labour party did win the election—undeservedly—but not a single extra nursery place has been provided.

Mr. Blunkett: There are two responses to that. First, we have not seen the beginning of the fulfilment of the pledge made by the Prime Minister six months ago, never mind the pledge of a local authority. Secondly, how dare the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) have the cheek to berate a Labour authority for not providing places after 11 months when the Secretary of State has asked him and his colleagues to berate local authorities for trying to provide such places?
The Secretary of States letter berates authorities for spending money on nursery education, and tells her hon. Friends to find out the facts. Presumably the hon. Gentleman found out the facts when he approached the authority at the request of the Secretary of State. He did so not to berate it for failing to provide places, but to find out whether places had been provided, in order that the Secretary of State could then criticise that authority.
It is time that Conservative Members stopped blaming everyone else, and started blaming themselves. It is time for them to stop whingeing and criticising and to stand up and take their medicine, as they will do at the general election.
What about surplus places, which the Secretary of State talked about in item 3 of her letter? Most of her facts turn out to be incorrect. She berates Warwickshire for having 19 per cent. extra places, but a plan which would reduce surplus places in Warwickshire to only 7 per cent. has been given to the Secretary of State. Let the right hon. Lady make the decisions.
Targets on surplus places were set in June last year for local authorities across the country. Let us be clear who is responsible for the failure to allow authorities to remove surplus places. The Government allow schools to opt out in order for them to escape playing their part in the planning and configuration of services, and in contributing to the removal of surplus places.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): What about choice?

Mr. Blunkett: What choice do schools have when they are being told to sack teachers, to increase class sizes and to stop providing nursery education? What choice do parents have when the Government introduce selection so that only some children can attend a school which, previously, everyone preferred to enter? What choice will parents have when the Government bring forward the legislation that they have floated in the pre-emptive Queens Speech, suggesting that, once again, not all the nations children but only a few will have access to capital funding, which the Government intend to make available only to grant-maintained schools?

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Such nonsense.

Mr. Blunkett: I hope that it is nonsense, but I give this pledge: whatever the Government make available to the few, and whatever changes they bring about in defining the public sector borrowing requirement in terms of allowing spending on education and the public-private finance initiative, we shall make available to every child, every school and every parent. We are not interested in looking after only the few; we are not interested in merely taking care of 5, 6 or 7 per cent. of the nations children; we are interested in investing in standards and opportunity for every child in every school.
The Government have run out of steam and are in turmoil. They are at the end of their tether. They are a spent force, scrambling around for ideas—any ideas and any initiatives. Everyone knows that, under the Tories, they are worse off, because they pay more and get less. On 4 May, in the local elections, and at the time of the general election, whenever it comes, people will give their verdict on the Government: their spending; their cuts; and their attack on parents, teachers, governors and the future of our children. That is why, today, we challenge every Member of this House to vote for our motion and save the children of our nation.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, to leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

welcomes the substantial increase in the real level of education spending since 1979; notes that in a tough settlement overall local authorities will still be able to spend more next year than in 1994–95; looks to them to set sensible priorities; welcomes the substantial improvement in standards of achievement by pupils in recent years, as demonstrated by examination and test results and by school inspection reports; and applauds the Governments education policies which are further driving up education standards, and giving parents more choice and information for the benefit of their children..
The best thing that I can say about the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is that it was predictable. It was predictable in its concern for input rather than output; in its desire to pour in taxpayers money without ensuring proper value for money; in its pretence that the Labour party did not oppose each and every measure to raise standards and provide opportunities passed through the House in the past 16 years; in its dealing with myths and scare stories; and, as ever, in choosing to ignore the facts.
It may help the House if I begin by setting out the facts again. On funding, I admit that it is a tough year. I have maintained that from the start. We are talking not about a cut in funding, however, but about a rise. We have increased funding in education by more than 1 per cent., which is a good deal in such a tight year for public expenditure.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: The Secretary of State said that cuts are not involved, yet the figures for Durham show that its standard spending assessment this year has declined from £208 million—[HON. MEMBERS: What about school rolls?] School rolls have increased to an extent that would involve, if Durham were fully funded, another £1 million, but its SSA has gone down by £2 million. How does the Secretary of State square that fact with her statement that it has gone up?

Mrs. Shephard: This years settlement allows all authorities to manage if they choose their priorities carefully. That is the position. It cannot be denied because, as I shall demonstrate, many of them are doing just that.
We should put the latest increase in its proper context. It follows a 2.4 per cent. increase for 1994–95 and constant increases in education spending since 1979. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) questioned the figures that said that spending per pupil had increased in real terms by almost 50 per cent., spending on books and equipment by 55 per cent. and so on. I remind him that he is indeed using Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy statistics, but statistics that have not been used for 10 years.
In that context, I am confident in repeating that spending on repairs and maintenance has increased by 15 per cent. and that spending on support staff is up by 135 per cent.

Mr. William OBrien: Will the Secretary of State accept an invitation to come and tell the parents and governors of schools in my constituency that they have received an increase in accordance with her statement now, when in fact they are confronted by difficulties in meeting the budget to ensure that the education to which children are entitled, and which they need, will be provided this year?
Every parent in my constituency knows that the Government are responsible for cuts in education. If the Secretary of State is to be fair and just to people, she


should admit that the Government need to put more money into education if we are to succeed in providing the quality of education to which people are entitled.

Mrs. Shephard: I would say to the hon. Gentleman, echoing what was said some time ago by the hon. Member for Brightside, that Her Majestys chief inspectors report was
about as unbiased as you can get.
That unbiased report said about resources:
In overall terms the provision of resources is satisfactory.
The hon. Member for Brightside has also sought to question how we stand internationally. Perhaps I should explain to him that he has muddled two sets of figures. We indeed spend a larger proportion of our public expenditure on education than do Japan, France, Germany or the Netherlands. Public expenditure on education in the United Kingdom accounts for a larger share of gross domestic product than it does in Germany or Japan. Those are facts. The hon. Gentleman muddled the two.

Mr. Blunkett: I should be grateful to the Secretary of State if we could place the matter on the record once and for all. The normal assessment of comparisons is with GDP; everyone knows that it is. Will she confirm this afternoon that France and the Netherlands—which she said on the radio last week spent less than we do—spend more as a proportion of GDP?

Mrs. Shephard: Public expenditure on education in the UK accounts for a larger share of GDP than it does in Germany or Japan. We spend a larger proportion of our public expenditure on education than do Japan or France or Germany or the Netherlands, as I said on the radio last week, and as I have said frequently since. Those are facts. Our record of massive and increasing funding provides the clearest possible proof that education is, has always been and will remain a Government priority.

Mr. Dunn: Earlier, the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to local authority funding. Does the Secretary of State realise that 13 authorities have domestic rates arrears of £167 million, 14 local authorities have community charge arrears of £347 million and 18 local authorities have council tax arrears of £160 million? That is more than £700 million in local taxation that has not been collected by Labour authorities. Does she also realise that the worst local authorities in terms of domestic rates are Camden and Liverpool, the worst in the context of community charge are Liverpool and Haringey and the worst in the context of council tax are Birmingham and, would you believe, Hackney?

Mrs. Shephard: I would certainly believe all that. As a result of those uncollected arrears, the money wasted on surplus places, the money in balances and the money that has been spent on clerical and administrative staff which might have been spent on front-line services, the independent review body found the pay award affordable.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Shephard: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. To whom is the right hon. Lady referring?

Mrs. Shephard: I am referring to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Does she agree with or condemn the action taken by schools in Derbyshire which have closed on training days so that staff can come to London and lobby the House of Commons? Perhaps my right hon. Friend might investigate that action and see whether the Opposition agree with it. Will she further explain why the county council in Derbyshire holds back £720 per pupil while neighbouring Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire—which are both Labour authorities—hold back £570?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have now heard three long interventions—two from one side and one from the other. Interventions should be short. I call the Secretary of State.

Mrs. Shephard: I am very puzzled by the disclosure of my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire. Can it be that Derbyshire is so in funds that it can afford to pay for supply cover for teacher absences? Has it closed schools so that teachers can take part in demonstrations? That seems absolutely extraordinary. If the position is as my hon. Friend has described, it may be a matter for the district auditor; I do not know. It seems extraordinary and it certainly destroys at a stroke the myth that Derbyshire is hard up for funds.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Shephard: I will give way, but then I shall have to make progress.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the Secretary of State giving way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes.

Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Before she moves on from the issue of financial statistics, will she confirm that the average reduction in standard spending assessment per pupil in real terms in this years settlement is £50 per primary school pupil and £194 per secondary school pupil? Will she further confirm that her 50 per cent. increase analysis is founded upon inflation based on the retail prices index and not upon an educationally based rate of increase?

Mrs. Shephard: I have already made the position absolutely clear: all local authorities can increase their spending on education this year if they choose to identify their priorities. I have already said that the CIPFA statistics which the hon. Member for Brightside cited are 10 years out of date.

Mr. Denis MacShane: will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Shephard: I will give way later, but I shall now make some progress.
Local authority funding accounts for a quarter of all public spending. It therefore cannot be immune from tough decisions and economic reality. Public borrowing must come down if we are to keep arein on inflation and increase prosperity and jobs. As the Audit Commission has said on a number of occasions and in a number of reports, local education authorities can cut their own costs. They still spend millions on running their central bureaucracies and on maintaining surplus places in schools.
As I said earlier, last year an Audit Commission report identified scope for saving half a billion pounds on the pay bill for local authorities administrative and clerical staff. The number of non-manual staff employed by councils increased by 90,000 between 1987 and 1993. The Audit Commission found that less than half that increase resulted from central Government initiatives. If local authorities exploit opportunities like that, they will have more money to spend on teachers in the classroom. It is a question of management and the ability to take hard decisions.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: My right hon. Friend has correctly drawn attention to the appalling record of Labour local authorities in favouring town halls rather than spending money in the classroom. Does she agree that it is entirely predictable that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did not mention the record of his local authority during his speech? This year Sheffield has reduced the proportion of its total budget to be spent in the classroom, and no less than 15 per cent. of the total education budget will go on town hall costs. That is one of the highest levels in the country.

Mrs. Shephard: I could expect anything from an authority that a couple of years ago increased spending on leisure by 109 per cent. and reduced spending on education by 15 per cent. Those were the priorities of that authority and now it has the temerity to say that it has a problem.

Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the profligate Labour and Liberal councillors in Gloucestershire, whom I mentioned earlier, are top-slicing their education budget by 21 per cent. compared with 16 per cent. in next-door Wiltshire?

Mrs. Shephard: Many authorities do far better than Gloucestershire in making funds available directly to schools. That is just what Gloucestershire should be doing.

Mr. macshane: A large number of the letters I receive every day on the subject from Rotherham are from Conservative voters—from managers and, if I may say so, from her people. Her description of education getting better has absolutely no correspondence with reality in South Yorkshire. Rotherham is not an extravagant council. It has cut by 40 per cent. its delayered staff in the education department, every single school in Rotherham is having to cut teacher numbers this year, despite massive cuts across the board in council expenditure. When will the Secretary of State speak for the children of Rotherham and England and not for the Treasury and tax cuts of the future?

Mrs. Shephard: The best way for the hon. Gentleman to speak for the children and parents of Rotherham is for him to ask precisely the questions of that authority that are being asked by my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). That

would be the way for the hon. Gentleman to protect the interests of his constituents. However, I have some interesting examples. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State continues, I should say that I am a little tired of running commentaries.

Mrs. Shephard: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I shall take Bedfordshire as my first example. The budget passed by the ruling combination of Liberal and Labour councillors represents a 3.5 per cent. cut in the schools budget, which could mean a reduction of 200 teacher posts. I wonder why the authority did not accept the alternative budget put forward by the Conservative group, which would have reduced the schools budget by only 2 per cent. and which would have been able to fund the whole of the teachers pay settlement. It would have taken £250,000 less out of county council balances and still included growth items to cover nursery education, special needs and increases in pupil numbers in mainstream and special schools.
Why would any responsible council not have accepted that budget? Perhaps Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors in Bedfordshire are more interested in making a political point than in serving their communities.
Why did Labour Lancashire slash its schools budgets by £19 million against the officers suggestion of £13 million, meanwhile reducing its administration costs by only £500,000? It rejected a Conservative proposal to set up a working group under an independent chairman to try to resolve some of the problems and restore some of the education cuts. I wonder whether those councillors are also more interested in political point scoring than serving the children of Lancashire.
In Cheshire, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat budget will fund the teachers pay award in full and it will increase spending in primary and secondary schools so that there will be almost £10 million extra for schools—7 per cent. above the education SSA. The budget proposals put before Cheshire council by the Labour group did not include funding the teachers pay award in full and provided only 1.2 per cent. above the SSA, leaving schools with a shortfall of £3 to £4 million. The vast majority of other authorities are coping—from Conservative Buckinghamshire to Labour Birmingham.
Local education authorities are in the best position to ensure that money goes where it is most needed in the light of local priorities. Many of them are doing that responsibly, focusing on front-line services.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mrs. Shephard: I should like to make a little progress.
I am grateful for the level-headedness of councillors, governors and teachers who are working out manageable responses to the settlement and maximising the use of resources to secure the best possible education for their pupils.

Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State mentioned Buckinghamshire and praised Conservatives in local government for doing such a good job, thus equating Buckinghamshire with an absence of problems. Why, then, did her hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) send one of his constituents a


version of the standard letter issued by the Department for Education and Conservative central office attacking Labour authorities, which attacked Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire county council for doing all the things that the right hon. Lady has just attacked Labour county councils for doing?

Mrs. Shephard: To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he missed my passing reference—and congratulations—to Birmingham city council, which I believe is Labour-controlled. I also mentioned the Liberal Democrats in connection with Cheshire. As for my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler), his correspondence is his own affair. Indeed, he may be in the House to speak for himself.

Mr. David Lidington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Buckinghamshire county council over-provided for the teachers pay award and was thus able to fund it in full? Moreover, because of its prudent financial management over many years, the council has been able to make a substantial contribution from its balance to protect its education budget.

Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the position of Buckinghamshire.
Although tough, this years settlement is manageable, as many authorities are proving. The Government are committed to implementing review body recommendations in full unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary. We think that there are no such reasons this year, and I am announcing this afternoon our conclusion that it would be right to implement the teachers pay recommendation in full: teachers deserve no less.
I began by describing the speech of the hon. Member for Brightside as predictable. It was; but he was less predictable when he chose to extol standards and opportunity. In fact, it was difficult to believe what we were hearing from a party that had opposed those principles at every turn for the past 16 years.
I am delighted to talk about standards and opportunity, because Conservative Members know a good deal about them. Let us start with the action that we have taken—as opposed to mere chatter—in regard to standards and opportunity in education. When we came to office in 1979, we were faced with an education system that was based on inputs and took no account of outputs. This afternoon, the hon. Member for Brightside has demonstrated yet again that Labour is happy for taxpayers money to be spent and is not interested in what it buys.
In 1979, there was no measure for what children should learn in schools; but a basic curriculum is central to the raising of standards. We therefore established such a curriculum, which laid proper emphasis on the basics of literacy and numeracy and provided a broad and balanced programme for all pupils aged between five and 16. To ensure that all that is working, we have introduced a framework of tests and assessment.
The Office of Standards in Education—Ofsted—reports that the national curriculum, which, sadly, was mindlessly opposed by Opposition Members, is already improving the teaching of mathematics, and that primary science can be counted a major success. Those improvements will continue. We can also applaud the steady improvement in GCSE results in recent years.

Mr. George Walden: My right hon. Friend speaks of educational opportunities. Can she explain

why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday appeared to close the door on the new educational opportunity offered by the entry of Manchester grammar school into the state sector? I hope that she will not mention the assisted places scheme; there is all the difference in the world between doling out the odd scholarship in a lordly fashion and opening the best schools in the country to the best and brightest brains.

Mrs. Shephard: The proposals for Manchester grammar school are extremely interesting and I know that my hon. Friend has does an enormous amount of work on the interface between the maintained and independent sectors. My hon. Friend has discovered and expressed many interesting viewpoints. I take this opportunity publicly to invite him to tea, to talk to me about them. [Interruption.] A number of ribald suggestions are coming from the Opposition Benches. I can only say that hon. Members are becoming over-excited.
We applaud the steady improvement in GCSE results in recent years. In 1989, just under 33 per cent. of 15-year olds gained five or more GCSEs at grade C or above. By 1994, the proportion had increased to more than 43 per cent. Those results and the record of all schools in achieving them are clear for all to see in our national performance tables, which we understand Labour Members now support. That is a good thing, because the tables also show performance in another vital area—truancy.
I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) condemned truancy the other day, yet it is curious that he and his party voted against all our measures to combat and to record truancy. They talk now about standards with all the zeal of the recent convert, yet for 16 years all our moves to raise standards were met with unremitting opposition from Labour.

Mr. George Stevenson: The Secretary of State talks about standards and opportunities. Nearly every school in my constituency faces cuts in teaching staff. I have met head teachers, and they blame not the authority but the Secretary of State for failing to fund the teachers pay increase. How will those cuts improve standards and opportunities in my constituency?

Mrs. Shephard: I have given examples of authorities which are managing perfectly well with this years settlement, even though it is tough. I advise the hon. Gentleman to take lessons from the examples that I gave.

Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) suggested that the SSA for Durham for the coming year will be less than for the current year. I checked the figures with the Library. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that Durhams SSA for the coming year will be in excess of that for the current year? Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West is a member of the shadow Treasury team, she got her figures wrong. She failed to take into account the children in Durham who are educated outside her county.

Mrs. Shephard: That is a matter for rejoicing for the hon. Lady, and I can see how delighted she is.
Independent inspection is crucial to raising standards. The Opposition seem to prefer a system in which primary schools could expect such an inspection once every 200 years and secondary schools once every 50 years, but we would not accept that. Our new inspection system provides


schools with a systematic and regular assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. With that diagnosis, schools can set clear targets for improvement.
Overall, inspection is indicating good standards across the system, but it is also confirming that a minority of schools have serious weaknesses or are failing. Where standards are unacceptably low, we will intervene. Our powers to do so have galvanised LEAs into action to improve their weakest schools. Most schools are making good progress while others are moving towards closure. Either way, pupils can look forward to better education. The policy is working.
The key to higher standards is good teaching, which is why we established the Teacher Training Agency. On Monday, I attended the launch of its first corporate plan—an impressive catalogue of activities, all designed to raise standards. The purpose of the agency is to improve the quality of teaching and of teacher education and training, in order to improve pupils achievement and the quality of their learning.
Who could oppose a body with such a purpose? Who could oppose bringing together activities previously scattered among various agencies and Departments?

Mr. Tony Benn: rose—

Mrs. Shephard: Who could oppose setting up one body committed and able to concentrate on the fight for higher teaching standards? I think that someone is about to suggest himself.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Lady aware that thousands of people have come down from Derbyshire today, and that tens of thousands have signed a petition, because all the words that she has used about higher standards stick in their gullets? Teachers, especially experienced teachers, are to be sacked; class sizes are to rise; school buildings are in disrepair. One of the greatest causes of their resentment is the fact that she does not reply to letters written to her by governors, parents and teachers. The information that she has given the House today is wholly misleading in respect of many local education authorities.

Mrs. Shephard: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman what I told my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) earlier. If the county council is in such financial straits, I do not understand how it has managed to provide supply cover to enable so many teachers to attend todays demonstration. That seems an extraordinary way of identifying priorities. If it is true that schools have been closed, it becomes even more extraordinary.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mrs. Shephard: I wish to make progress. I have already taken—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the rights of people in this country is to be

able to come and lobby their Members of Parliament and bring them petitions, as you will agree. By and large schools have difficulties—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Sit down. That is clearly not a point of order. The Minister did not give way to allow the hon. Gentlemans hoped-for intervention, so he must resume his seat.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have a point of order, and he must resume his seat.

Mrs. Shephard: People do indeed have the right to petition Parliament; whether they have the right to do so at public expense is another matter.

Mr. Den Dover: We are trying to improve standards in a difficult year for budget settlements. As we are the party of choice, does my right hon. Friend agree that the only realistic option is to open up the grant-maintained sector? Is it not appalling that only one school in Chorley has gone for GM status? Is not GM status the only way to ensure extra expenditure on schools—and extra capital expenditure on them?s

Mrs. Shephard: Yes. It is a pity that the Opposition motion, which concerns opportunity, does not mention choice or diversity. Perhaps that is not surprising, for the Labour party has opposed choice and diversity at every turn: grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, and even the Education Act 1980, which introduced parental choice in the maintained sector. Nothing has done more to establish choice and diversity than GM schools.
When we came to power, LEAs had a monopoly of state schooling and detailed control of schools. We have given more autonomy to all schools, and we have given parents a central role in determining how much autonomy schools should have.
Parents have the right to decide whether their childs school should become self-governing. Well over 1,000 schools have made the choice to go GM, and the number continues to grow. I hope that the numbers are growing in my right hon. Friends constituency.

Dame Angela Rumbold: It seems to me that GM schools offer not only choice but the chance for governing bodies, without commitment, to do the arithmetic and work out the difference that it might make to them if they opted out of LEA control and became grant-maintained. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be interesting for schools to undertake those sums?

Mrs. Shephard: I do. Many schools are doing exactly that at the moment. They will also take into account the fact that, on average, GM schools perform better than their LEA counterparts. The-primary schools have better test scores at key stage one. The comprehensive schools have better GCSE results and less truancy. Not surprisingly, therefore, GM schools are popular with parents—including a number of parents who sit on the Opposition Benches.
What a pity it is that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield—an apparent convert to GM—has so little influence over his own Labour town halls. The behaviour of many of them towards schools seeking to become GM, and to GM schools themselves, has been disgraceful.
Let us take one or two examples from across the country, ranging from deliberate attempts to terrorise to acts of petty spite. Birmingham city council waged a campaign of discrimination against the pupils and staff of Baverstock grant-maintained school. Pupils were banned from libraries during school hours and were not allowed to borrow books for school projects. The school was not allowed to use council football pitches, and pupils were unable to use the local swimming pool.
In April 1994, the Lib-Lab pact which controls Avon county council produced a guidance document clearly designed to intimidate schools considering the GM option, as the following sentences demonstrate:
A Grant-Maintained ballot unleashes deep divisions within parent groups and within communities … the experience of a ballot is a very unpleasant one for the Governing body, the staff and some of the parents.
But what price Labour town halls, when the right hon. Member for Sedgefield seems unable to convert his own education spokesman? The hon. Member for Brightside has stated his opposition to GM schools up and down the land and also quite clearly in the House. Speaking to GM heads last week he made soothing noises, talking about
flexible partnerships for GMs with their local community,
and saying:
coherence in the configuration of services is also a key process in which all schools should participate.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain to the more than 1 million GM parents, not to mention their governors, heads, teachers and children, exactly what those phrases mean. Would he like to tell the House? Can he, as I asked him in a letter last week, give GM pupils, parents and teachers an assurance that he has no intention of changing or interfering with the freedoms, choice and diversity for which these parents have voted?

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us are acutely aware of the movements of the Clerk of the House. I noticed just now that he turned to you to suggest that the right hon. Lady might be out of order. Will you consider what he said? We believe that she is.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I never comment on any advice that I may receive from Clerks. In any case, if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, he will find it couched in such wide terms that what the Secretary of State is saying is in order.

Mrs. Shephard: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand why this may be rather a sensitive subject for the Opposition.
I spoke of a letter that I wrote to the hon. Member for Brightside last week. I hope that he will give the House an answer to it. Many of his colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, are awaiting it eagerly, because the education of their own children is at stake.

Mr. Blunkett: The answer on grant-maintained schools is that they are as subject to cuts and redundancies as every other type of school—as spelled out in the right

hon. Ladys letter to her Cabinet colleagues. We give this pledge: every child and every school will be treated equitably and fairly and will be given the same investment to lift standards and opportunities for 100 per cent. of our children, not just 7 per cent. of them.

Mrs. Shephard: Dearie me, those are very soothing words, and I do not think that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield will like that too much. Of course Labour Members do not like grant-maintained schools, because those schools manage their own affairs and control their total budgets. They escape from the iron grip of Labour-controlled town halls.

Mr. Marland: Did my right hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in the same way as I did? He gave an assurance that all schools would be treated in exactly the same way. Does that mean that they will all be dealt with directly by a Labour Government and that they will completely sideline all the local authorities, because that is how I interpret it—no local democracy, no local influence, the whole thing controlled by the hon. Gentleman?

Mrs. Shephard: No doubt the hon. Member for Brightside will make his case with the right hon. Member for Sedgefield some time this evening. Whatever he meant, he meant the end of grant-maintained schools, that is for sure.

Ms Armstrong: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mrs. Shephard: No. I am not giving way any more.
The Government have an outstanding record of achievement in education. The reforms have established a new framework for education that raises standards and extends opportunity, choice, diversity and achievement. What has the Oppositions contribution been to all that? It has been opposition all the way. No one can deny it; it is clearly chronicled in their voting record.
They have voted against every measure to raise standards and increase opportunity; against every measure to increase choice in the maintained sector; against the assisted places scheme; against the introduction of more parent-governors; against the national curriculum and assessment tests; against GM schools and city technology colleges; against the establishment of Ofsted and the new inspection regime; against the establishment of a higher education funding council; and against the establishment of the Teacher Training Agency.
With that record, how dare the Opposition lecture us about standards and opportunity? How dare they pose as the guardians of opportunity—they who would deny to others the very choices that they seize eagerly for their own children?
It is the Conservative Government who have ensured that we have higher standards and greater opportunities throughout our educational system than ever before. The Government have given the young people of Britain wider choice and greater opportunity and thrown open the doors to a better education and training that is more sound. That is a record of which we are proud, and it is a record that we intend to maintain and enhance.

Mr. Mike Hall: The debate takes place against a backdrop of growing concern about the funding of our education system, particularly in the state sector.
The Government have failed to deliver high-quality education in all our schools, and that is one of the devastating failures of the past 16 years of Tory party misrule.
The Governments over-prescription of the national curriculum, their failure to deliver on teachers concerns over the way in which they conduct the standard attainment test and their interference in the GCSE examination have impeded, not promoted, the process of improving the standards that are achieved by our pupils in state schools. The Governments blind promotion of grant-maintained schools owes much more to political ideology of selection than it does to choice.
In its leader of 27 April 1992, The Times said:
To pretend that the selective opted out structure emerging as Government policy has anything to do with parental choice is a deception.
Those are powerful words. What they say has been underpinned by a concerted attack on the professionalism of teachers, as evidenced in the recent unhelpful comments by the Secretary of State for Education, who commented on what goes on in classrooms throughout the country.
The debate also takes place against a backdrop of remorseless and systematic education spending cuts. What brings todays debate sharply into focus is the united protest of parents, teachers and governors across the country. Thousands upon thousands of ordinary people, united in their commitment to fight for the best possible education for their children, have been spontaneously thrust into action by the Governments mindless refusal to fund in full this years modest teachers pay award. That act in itself says a great deal about how hopelessly out of touch the Government have become.
The Government stand idly by while bosses in the privatised utilities award themselves massive pay raises, paid for out of the pockets of water, gas and electricity users, yet when it comes to the teachers pay award, the Government agree that the increase is justified but meanly refuse to pay for it. Those actions have left thousands of governors with the atrocious task of sacking teachers and/or increasing class sizes. The Government do not care, because they believe that increasing class sizes does not in itself affect standards. What utter nonsense.
Faced with that choice—requiring almost a judgment of Solomon—school governors have protested loud and clear about the act of educational vandalism perpetrated by the Government. School governors are the same governors whom the Government claim to have liberated, empowered and given a voice to. Is it not ironic that, when those governors speak out in one voice to condemn the Governments actions over the refusal to fund in full the teachers pay award, the so-called self-styled liberators—the Government—ignore their views? So much for the Governments rhetoric about giving parents and governors more say in education.
The Government are only the fickle friend of parent power. In response to the protest, we have seen the ignominious retreat of the Secretary of State for Education. At first she recognised that up to 10,000

teachers would be made redundant and that class sizes would shoot up as a result of the Governments failure to fund in full the teachers pay award. She now says, however, that the pay award can be funded out of unpaid poll tax and the removal of surplus places. In other words, she is suggesting that local education authorities can fund the pay award with money that they do not have. She is engaged in fantasy politics, and she knows it.
Shire county LEAs are not responsible for collecting poll tax or council tax arrears, yet the Secretary of State suggests that teachers pay should be partly funded out of the collection of those arrears. She cannot be serious in her suggestion that teachers monthly salary pay cheques should become dependent on whether a district council has recovered sufficient poll tax arrears to meet the salary bill.
Likewise, on the issue of surplus places, the savings suggested by the Secretary of State are illusory, in that every time an LEA attempts to close a school because of over-capacity, that school applies to become grant-maintained and thus frustrates the efforts of the LEA to rationalise education places. If any proof is needed of that, all one has to do is look at Bankfield high school, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). It was faced with closure. It applied to opt out and was granted grant-maintained status by the Secretary of State.
In response to the avalanche of criticism by school governors, the Prime Minister, at Question Time last Tuesday, said:
Of course we recognised from the outset that this years settlement is tough in education.
He should have said that the Tory partys approach is tough on education. He went on to say:
If any local authority is thinking of cutting the number of teachers in the classroom, I would ask it what savings it had made in non-teaching aspects of education.—[Official Report, 21 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 140.]
That patronising nonsense beggars belief after 16 years of education cuts perpetrated by the Tories.
My own LEA—it was mentioned by the Secretary of State—Cheshire county council, which is Tory-Liberal Democrat controlled, is at the bottom of the league in spending per pupil. Cheshire county council spends only £1,321 per nursery and primary school place. The average is £1,580. Suffolk, which is at the top of the league, spends £1,944. On secondary school places, the position is similar. Cheshire spends only £2,072, when the average is £2,260. Cleveland, at the top of the league, spends £2,515.
At the time of the 1995–96 revenue support grant settlement, Michael Pitt, chief executive of Cheshire county council, wrote to me to say that his authoritys administration costs are very low, that class sizes are higher and that its pupil-teacher ratios are far worse than the average. Yet the Secretary of State holds that up as an example of a good education authority. Of course, Michael Pitt is right. In 1994, Cheshire had 19.1 pupils per teacher and was the fourth worst in England. The 1995 figure shows that the ratio has worsened. In Warrington, there are 19.8 pupils per teacher, and in Halton Vale Royal, there are 19.4 pupils per teacher. The Secretary of State quoted that as a good example of providing education. Of course, that was before the decision on the revenue support grant and the Governments refusal to fund fully the teachers pay award.
Cheshire county councils SSA for 1995–96 has been cut by 3.3 per cent. in real terms, and its revenue support grant has been cut by 0.8 per cent. in real terms. That, together with the ES million cost of fully funding the teachers award, has placed severe pressures on the education budget.
To balance its books, Cheshire county council has cut £1.6 million from its client services. That means cutting the number of free school meals and increasing the cost of school meals that are paid for. It has cut £90,000 from its education support services, £290,000 from continuing education and youth and community provision and £113,000 from inspection. The Secretary of State says that inspection is one of the ways to improve standards in our schools, but an authority that she congratulates has cut £113,000 from its inspection budget.
Worst of all, Cheshire county council made a cut of £3 million from student awards in this financial year, and it plans to cut them by £3 million in the next financial year. That means that no discretionary grants or support will be given to adults who wish to return to education. That cut alone hits standards and colleges alike. Warrington collegiate institute is set to lose £300,000 as a result, and adults who return to education will have to fund their own courses or forgo the option of enhancing their qualifications. The loss of discretionary awards hits working-class students hardest, and they are the very people who need to return to education.
Unfortunately, Cheshire county council did not stop there. It cut £575,000 from the primary schools budget, £1.5 million from the secondary schools budget and £440,000 from special education needs. However, the authority was still left with the problem of finding £8 million to fund fully the pay award for its teachers. If the Government had fully funded that award, Cheshire county council could have used the money to bring it from the bottom of the educational ladder on spending per pupil. It could have spent more on improving its poor pupil-teacher ratio in Halton, Warrington and elsewhere in its area.
The money could have been spent on establishing a junior school unit for hearing-impaired pupils at the Brow school in Runcorn. Much-needed extra resources could have been given to the learning support service in Warrington or to a multi-sensory impairment unit similar to the excellent facilities that are provided at the Russett school in Weaverham. It could have provided a much-needed unit in primary schools for partially sighted pupils.
It is clear that the Government have misjudged the mood of the nation on this issue and have ignored the harmful effects of these cuts on our education. They need to rethink their strategy—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are on a 10-minute limit.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: The first matter that I should like to place on the record is that, since 1979, there has been a huge increase in Government expenditure on education. There are 50 per cent. more sixth formers than when we came to power, and the number of pupils moving to higher education is now one in three compared with one in eight. That is a 150 per cent. increase. All that

has had to be funded, so there is no doubt that we have put vast sums into education. The Secretary of State mentioned that.
A comparison with other countries of the percentage that Britain spends on education will often show to our advantage. On the figures that I have seen, the comparisons with Germany, France and Japan are credible. However, no matter how much more money we have put in and how many more students there are at every level, what matters is the quality of teachers, the commitment of parents and the syllabus. On those three issues over the past 16 years, the Government have done a great deal in every way.
We installed a basic curriculum when we came to power in 1979 and I was privileged to be an Education Minister for four years. A headlong comprehensive reorganisation was jittering to a stop and the far left had encouraged do-it-yourself education in schools instead of real teaching, which means seating people at desks and teaching them with real teachers instead of joyriders.
As I have said, we introduced the basic curriculum. For a time it was too complicated, and I accept that for a while it was oppressive. But that was a trial period, and now there is a good curriculum in primary and secondary schools and testing at the ages of seven, 11 and 14. That is as it should be.
I make no apology for the introduction of league tables. There is a premium football league and there should also be a premium educational league because education is a necessity. In 1979, there was no parental choice and local authorities could increase or decrease the size of schools just as they wanted.

Mr. Dunn: They could do that at will.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Parents were not given the privilege of knowing the curriculum and there was no parental choice. We changed all that. In the past 16 years, the Government have done very well for education. All the changes that we have made to improve education have been opposed by the Labour party.

Mr. Dunn: And by the Liberals.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I had forgotten that the Liberals still exist. They also opposed the changes. The Opposition opposed every Second Reading—when I checked yesterday I found that only one Third Reading was unopposed. We introduced the curriculum and parental choice, but they preferred parents to be blindfolded and having to go where they were sent, like a conscript army.
Apparently, the Labour party now agrees with us on most matters, which is rather a compliment. However, it does not agree that reverse discrimination in education—the assisted places scheme—has worked. Some 34,000 children from some of the poorest homes in the country are in our best schools. The party that talks about reverse discrimination turned against the only good reverse discrimination ever carried out in education.
I am concerned about three issues, the first of which is the destruction of playing fields and the consequent lack of sporting facilities. Today, I asked for a list of school and other playing fields that have been lost in my constituency over the 21 years that I have been there. The Government should direct that no playing field should be


taken out of action from now on unless there is Government approval. There is no point in talking about sport if there are no facilities for it.
Secondly, I am concerned to maintain the standards of A-level and degree courses. No deterioration should arise from the fact that more people are sitting for those examinations, as that would put at risk the severity of the examinations. Thirdly, I am concerned to see the return of morning school assemblies because they bring the people in a school together. Such an assembly has a moral and a disciplinary place in a school and if the headmaster cannot keep 1,200 pupils in order at assembly, he cannot expect his staff to keep them in order in the classrooms. I sometimes suspect that assemblies are not held because of the fear of bad behaviour.
I should like to deal with another matter on which I think I might have the support of the whole House. That would be a surprise and a privilege, and I shall give my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who was also a teacher, a drink if I manage to do it. I do not think that we realise that the power in education has changed. In the beginning, the political parties organised it nationally and locally and there were agreements about setting up governing bodies. That has gone, and one of the problems facing the Government is that the power has passed to parents and teachers.

Mr. Dunn: What is wrong with that?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: There is nothing wrong with that. My hon. Friend is cross-examining me. I will have a word with him, too. He will not get a drink afterwards. The battles will now be fought with parents and teachers, not with the local authorities of old.
Let me end my speech as I know that a time limit has been imposed.

Mr. Marland: My right hon. Friend has three minutes.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I have three minutes, so I can move a little more slowly, even start again or ask which parts of my speech I should expand on.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend give way so that I can help him along?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: No, I shall not give way. My hon. Friend and I are speaking in a debate on Friday. He is giving an introduction for me. I have changed my mind. I shall give way to him.

Mr. Carlisle: I promise to say nice things about my right hon. Friend on Friday. Does he agree that corporal punishment is another old-fashioned principle to which we should return?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I would vote for that tomorrow. Capital and corporal punishment is coming back around the world, including in America. Eventually, it will come back here. We shall all have to have a drink together on the day that that happens.
In 1987, a MORI poll was conducted on whether parents were satisfied with their childrens education. It showed that 74 per cent. of parents were satisfied. The 1994 MORI poll showed that 83 per cent. were satisfied. The Government have poured money into education because of the extension in the number of people staying

on longer. Secondly, we have tightened education up through the national curriculum, parental choice and all those changes, against the wishes of the Labour party, which is so unqualified to go into government. Thirdly, we have to watch out that that vast expansion does not mean a lowering of standards. Apart from that, I have full confidence in the Government on education.

Mr. Don Foster: It is always difficult to follow the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). His ideas are often interesting and provocative but, sadly, wrong.
As the House will know, I act as an adviser to two teacher unions. I suspect that they will be slightly surprised to hear my opening remarks. I should like to pay a compliment to the Secretary of State for Education, who, sadly, is not in her place. The House will acknowledge that rejection, especially public rejection, is difficult to bear. All hon. Members know that, behind the scenes, the Secretary of State has been working hard to try to obtain additional money for the education service.
We know that, behind the scenes, the right hon. Lady has made it clear that she knows that the recent education settlement will damage the education service, that a number of teachers will have to be sacked, and that she believes class sizes will rise. I congratulate her on the fact that she managed to give a speech in which none of that, and none of the public humiliation that she suffered as a result of her Cabinet colleagues rejection of her pleas, showed through.

Mr. Alan Duncan: In my county of Leicestershire, the Conservatives put forward a budget that would have given an extra £1 million to education. The Liberal Democrat leader on Leicestershire county council said that, if he had an extra £1 million, he would not spend it on schools. Does the hon. Gentleman stand by that statement?

Mr. Foster: Many decisions have been made at local level by local authorities that are placed in considerable difficulty because of the restraints on finance imposed in recent settlements under the Government.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose—

Mr. Foster: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Without knowing the details of the Leicestershire case, it would be inappropriate for me to comment, but it is interesting that, both in the Chamber and on the radio in the past 24 hours, we have heard a number of examples of what Liberal Democrat and Labour authorities have done. One relates to Bedfordshire county council. The Secretary of State suggested on the radio this morning, and repeated at the Dispatch Box today, that the Liberal Democrat and Labour administration in Bedfordshire had produced a budget that was less for education than the Conservatives had.
This morning, however, the Secretary of State received a letter from that council, pointing out that the information that she gave on the radio and subsequently did not tie in with the budget figures in Bedfordshire, where the Liberal Democrat-Labour administration put forward a budget amounting to nearly £250 million more than that of the


Conservatives. It is not the other way around. I need to know the details of the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).

Sir David Madel: The hon. Gentleman should consider Bedfordshires budget more closely. The Labour-Liberal budget has resulted in a 3.5 per cent. cut in school budgets. The Conservative budget, in addition to funding teachers pay, resulted in a 2 per cent. cut. That is a difference of 1.5 per cent. Each 1 per cent. amounts to £35,000 in one upper school. Therefore, an extra £52,500 has been cut from the budget of one upper school in Bedfordshire. Those are the correct figures

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is making the point that Conservative Members are making the most incredible use of some statistics.
I have the budget figures that were contained in the budget proposals of the two political groups. Today at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State told us clearly that more money was being made available for the education service. Of course, everyone knows that that amount of money is an increase on the previous year, but she refused to acknowledge that, in real terms, the amount of money has decreased by £50 per primary pupil and by nearly £200 per secondary pupil.
People outside need to know the statistics that make it clear what is happening on the ground. Parents, teachers and governors know that the education service in their region is being cut and that, as a result, the quality of education being provided to their children is being harmed.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I shall not give way. Although I do not have to comply with the 10-minute rule, Madam Speaker is keen for me to stay as close to it as I can. Perhaps I shall give way when I have made a little progress.
It is interesting that the Cabinet is clearly split on education. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury wants nursery vouchers, yet the Secretary of State opposes them. Earlier today at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State said that the ideas of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on Manchester grammar school were refreshing, and she invited him to tea to discuss them. Only yesterday, however, the Prime Minister rejected those ideas in his answers at Prime Ministers Question Time.
It is reported that the President of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Secretary, who are running scared of the backlash caused by education cuts, want more money to be spent on schools rather than on tax cuts, yet, needless to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposes that.
The Prime Minister, meanwhile, makes claims about the number of local education authority administrators. Frankly, his claims would not pass key stage 1 in mathematics. If he considers his own local education authority, he will find that, out of the nearly 8,000 teachers and support staff, such as caretakers, cleaners and education welfare officers, less than one in 26 are involved in LEA administration—hardly the two administrators per three teachers that he claimed.
The Prime Minister knows, and the Cabinet knows only too well, that LEAs have already been forced to cut into the bone as a result of education cuts. To misquote Winston Churchill, the Government have got themselves into a shambles wrapped in confusion inside chaos.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose—

Mr. Foster: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have had extremely extensive correspondence on the issues that no doubt he wants to raise. He can refer to the letters that I have written to him in relation to the point that I am sure he wants to raise.
As a result of all that chaos, our teachers, our governors and, perhaps most important, our pupils suffer. They suffer from having larger classes—1 million primary pupils are in classes of more than 30, and 100,000 in classes of more than 36. They suffer because the school buildings are falling down around their ears. A survey last week revealed that more than a quarter of schools have been forced to close dilapidated buildings, and nearly 20 per cent. of schools have had pupils or staff suffering from illness or injury linked to poor conditions.
It is hardly surprising that truanting has increased. Instead of fining parents for not sending their children to school, perhaps we should fine Ministers for not making the money available to ensure that schools are places where children want to go.
The failure to fund the education service means that there is now a £4.3 billion backlog of repairs and maintenance to school buildings.

Mr. John Carlisle: It is, of course, easy to spend someone elses money, which is the hon. Gentlemans partys policy. He criticised the Conservative authoritys budget in Bedfordshire, but I remind him that, under the Liberal-Labour budget now accepted by the council, it is estimated that between 250 and 300 redundancies will have to be made in the education service. Under the Conservative budget, some 140 redundancies would have to be made, because we are making greater savings elsewhere. In other words, his party is concerned not with jobs but with pouring more money into what seems in Bedfordshire to be a bottomless pit.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has a very peculiar view of the nature of the education service. One of the problems is that many Conservative Members seem to believe—just like the Prime Minister when he talked about administrators—that one can provide an education service without any of the back-up and support that teachers desperately need in the classroom. That is what worries many people. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reflect on the point of having Ofsted inspectors identify problems in schools—problems that teachers often already know about—but for there then to be no back-up and support to help the schools to put matters right.
The situation is already bad enough, but let us reflect on what the Government are now doing. The Secretary of State did not deny that, under the financial support settlement, the Government have cut £50 in real terms from spending on every primary school pupil and nearly £200 from spending on every secondary school pupil. In effect, that is a cut of £10,000 for a 200-pupil primary school, or a cut of £126,000 for a 650-pupil secondary school. The total is a £700 million cut. How can local education authorities possibly make up such a shortfall?
Many people outside have rumbled the Government. They know that the problems cannot be blamed on local education authorities, but that the blame must be put fairly and squarely on central Government cuts, where it belongs. Perhaps the most cynical reaction since Herod asked the wise men to take him to greet the baby was to support an increase for teachers but not to fund it.
The situation was beautifully summed up in a letter that I read recently in an education magazine. The letter read:
Dear Editor, My son was pleased when I told him I was putting his pocket money up by five pounds. He was a bit bemused when I told him I was not funding the increase. When he asked me where the money was coming from, I told him that was his problem.
That is the problem faced by schools across the country.

Mr. Duncan: Where is the money to come from?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps put that question to the Secretary of State, because she too has been asking for more money for the education service, but her request has been rejected. Perhaps she now knows how people in the education service feel. People in the service have rumbled the Government. They know that the Government are trying to save money for pre-election tax cut bribes. The Government should not be allowed to succeed.
I hope that the Secretary of State will continue to press the Cabinet for more money for the education service, and that she will not give up in the attempt. If she does not succeed, the only honourable thing for someone in her position is to resign her post. I am sorry that she is not here to hear me say this. She has, at least privately, indicated her support for the education service. The time has now come, however, for her to put her job on the line to secure a decent future for our schools, and I hope that she will do so this evening by supporting the Labour motion.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That was a fascinating tirade by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I happen to have had the privilege of knowing the Secretary of State for Education for a very long time. She was, in fact, the inspector at the village school to which my children went—six of them. She was a very good inspector, just as she had been a very good teacher.
My right hon. Friend was far from humiliated in the recent Budget discussions. Although the national Budget was frozen overall, two Secretaries of State won increases for their Departments budgets—the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education. I reckon that the ladies did rather well.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Bath do not entirely surprise me. He had the great privilege of attending Lancaster Royal grammar school—he was the only Liberal it ever turned out. His school report boded ill for the Liberal party. It read as follows:
Muddle-headed and impulsive. May grow out of it. Daft and illogical. Does less than justice to work by indulging in irreverence and orgies of bad spelling.
We cannot judge the quality of his spelling, but we can judge the quality of his logic.
Reference has already been made to the fact that the motion ranges very widely. I have the great privilege of having several superb schools in my constituency, and many of the pupils who have attended them—including the hon. Member for Bath—went on to university. As the House may be somewhat tired of hearing by now, I also have an absolutely superb university in my constituency. In todays hierarchy, it is third only to Oxford, which is a superb university, and to Cambridge, which is not too bad.
Lancaster university has led the field in so many subjects and is now on an international plane. It set the scene for the whole university world when, last week, it raised no less than £35 million on the stock exchange on the strength of its reputation. Is that not an enormous tribute to the work it has done?
I am very interested in the observations that have been made about staffing, and I am very keen to learn about staffing at county hall. I was astounded to find that, although further education has been removed from the orbit of the county councils, and although much of the county councils work has been removed because of local management of schools, staffing gains have nevertheless been made in administration. In Preston in 1990–91, there were 503 full-time equivalents. The figure then shot up to 543, despite the fact that further education had been removed from county council control, and local management of schools had transferred much work from county to schools. Last year, the figure went up to 548.
The Secretary of State referred to a cut of £500,000 in Lancashires administration. I laughed, because the £500,000 cut was a tightening of the rules because of the excessive amount of sick pay taken by county hall staff, which was mentioned by the Audit Commission.
I was so extremely incensed by the way in which the county had cut the money for our schools that I decided to go into the question of grant-maintained status. GM status was not only a Conservative idea you know, ladies and gentlemen—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I mean hon. Members, although some hon. Members are ladies and gentlemen.
There was a fascinating item in the Evening Standard a week last Tuesday which quoted Eric Hammond, a chairman of a school which is trying to become grant-maintained. I could not have agreed with him more. I do not recall having agreed with him before, but I did on that occasion. He said:
It is not in our interests to be tied to an expensive bureaucracy.
By golly, it is not in our interests either.
There is also a very good school in Bradford which has just become grant-maintained. The headmaster of that school is a former Labour councillor. He told a friend of mine who was there only last Friday, so it was fairly recently, that, if a Labour Government were elected—heaven preserve us—and abolished grant-maintained status, he would take immediate early retirement.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to Baverstock school. I have been circulating the cutting of Mr. Hammonds piece and the cutting about Baverstock school to all the parents who write to me about GM status, because it shows what can be achieved when governors, parents and teachers take their courage in both hands and decide that their fate and that of their children shall be in their own hands and not those of the county.
Baverstock was an extremely rundown school, and now it is in fine fettle. Since becoming grant-maintained, it has taken on 12 new teachers. It was forecast that, once it gained GM status, it would get rid of children who were more difficult to educate—but far from it. Of those 12 teachers, two teach children with special needs on a one-to-one basis.
My right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) who, alas, is no longer in her place, suggested that school governors should get out the figures for how much better off their schools would be if they were grant-maintained. I have gone one better. I have found out how much better off every school in my constituency would be if it was grant-maintained, and I have circulated the figures to every head teacher and all chairmen of governors.
On Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) and I are holding a seminar to discuss with some head teachers and chairmen of governors who have—[Horn. MEMBERS: Who is paying for it?] It is at our expense—50:50. The seminar is so that teachers and governors can learn how much better off they would be from those schools which have already gained grant-maintained status. One school in my constituency has had a bite of almost £250,000 taken out of its funding by the county.
All schools would be better off. I have always known that, but I did not know by how much until I went into the matter so carefully. The people at the seminar will be able to hear for themselves what has happened to those who have gone down the path of GM status. They will be able to ask as many questions as they like. If hostile people attend, they will be more than welcome, because we will be able to convert them. The future of our children depends on such people having the chance of getting the money they should have direct from the Government. It should not be watered down by county hall, which fritters it away.

Mr. Barry Jones: The speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was also a fascinating tirade. I was glad to hear the combative opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). I thought that the Secretary of State, however, made only a grimly determined speech. It did not convince the House. It was perhaps contrived by a desiccated calculating machine. The right hon. Lady certainly came to the House with a weak hand, and she delivered a very weak speech. Indeed, all she offered the nation, in effect, was tea and sympathy, to quote her words. It was an uncomfortable speech, and her supporters looked uncomfortable as well.
This year, I have made only nine visits to schools in my constituency. When I talk to the class teacher, I find morale very low indeed. When I talk to head teachers, I find them deeply worried. When I talk to governors, I find that they sometimes feel overwhelmed by what are now very onerous responsibilities.
When the deputation came to the House last week for the mass lobby by people from all over the country, I met four people from my locality—two class teachers, a representative of those who lead ancillary workers in the school service, and a local education authority

chairperson. They made the point that there was an absolute and urgent need for more investment and more teachers in the school service.
Anybody who takes the trouble to visit our schools and spends some time in classrooms observing what is going on will quickly be converted to the side of the teacher. Most classrooms are a credit to enter. They display first-rate work. The decoration of the walls and the presentation of the various schemes and projects of the children show any visitor that the class teacher is doing first-rate work.
I praise the dedication, conscientiousness and professionalism of the teachers of our country. In the circumstances, they are doing a wonderful job. I would like them to receive more praise and more resources to enable them—even better than now—to deliver a first-rate service to the children in their care.
I could sum up the feeling of secondary school head teachers by citing the reaction of one, who said that there were very few problems in the school itself; the problems came through the letter box. Head teachers are angry at the demands made on them by ministerial fiat, by local education authority questionnaire and by various bulletins.
Head teachers at whatever level want to provide an even better service to the local children and parents. They feel overwhelmed time and time again by a tide of paper—by diktat from central Government—and they are asking for a respite while they try to cope with the demands which have already been made of them. They must be right. The nations schools now need a breathing space.
If we consider the impact of the leadership by a succession of Conservative Secretaries of State and their legislation, the House might think it sobering. First there was the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), then the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and then the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). It would be uncontroversial to say that those Secretaries of State were highly controversial.
Perhaps the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) tried to secure some peace in his work. From the contribution made by the right hon. Lady, the present Secretary of State, she appears to be suing for peace. History may be kind to the late Sir Keith Joseph, if only because of his technical and vocational education initiative. I did not think there was any malice, since there was certainly no command, from Lord Carlisle.
As Cabinet Ministers in charge of the nations school service, the reigns of the right hon. Members for Mole Valley and for Oxford, West and Abingdon and of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe were disastrous. They were always seeking to make a reputation, but in so doing, they almost destroyed the school service that they were supposed to be leading and restoring. They almost destroyed the coherence of the civil service, and of the inspectorate and its interface with the school service. Certainly the confidence and self-respect of the teaching force was gravely impaired by many Conservative Secretaries of State, and that communicated itself to parents and governing bodies.
Governing bodies then found that there was an urgent need to raise money through sales of work and so on to provide the essentials for our schools in the late 20th century. Her Majestys Government carelessly embarked


on a series of privatisations of public utilities, and used the funds raised from those great sales of the family silver to give tax cuts to the better-off. Meanwhile, the cuts in the school service continued. That had to be wrong.
Today, there remains a miserable scene of cuts and frustration. Children in communities with large-scale unemployment and poverty are not getting the chances they deserve. They are only young once. Many children stay up far too late at night, are irregular attenders and exist on poor diets. Concentration can be woeful, and distractions are legion.
Many children in our schools do not have two parents, and for some children, the school is frequently a substitute home. It also provides them with a source of protein, and a venue for standards and for prayers. Schools are the places where right and wrong are patiently explained by dedicated teachers. We should not starve our schools of resources and of the desperately needed additional teachers.
From parliamentary answers given to me, I know that class sizes are creeping up, and now teachers are expected to cope with the consequences of a powerful social revolution roaring through our country—and this at a great pace. That poses serious problems for them, and they must be given the resources to get on with coping with those massive challenges.
Above all, parents are asking the Government for more teachers. In the primary sector, especially, average class sizes are increasing; in the smaller high schools there is a sense of desperation. We want central Government to provide a better delivery of the essential services at the chalk face for teachers, parents and governors.
To sum up, parents want the leaking roof to be plugged and the classrooms to be redecorated. They are not asking for the earth. They do not want a revolution; they simply want justice, and a fair deal from the Government.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: In listening to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and to all the Opposition Members who have spoken so far, I detect a close similarity in their speeches. That reflects the lack of choice, diversity and excitement in Opposition education policies that always becomes clear in such debates. Perhaps that is partly explained by the report on the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), about which we enjoyed hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
I am glad that this is a wide-ranging debate, because it will give me the chance to talk about selection, choice and excellence in education. Those issues underpin the reason why Opposition education policies have failed in the past, and will fail in the future, should they ever be tried.
As the debate is partly about teachers and their pay, perhaps at this stage I should declare a connection with, and an interest in, the Professional Association of Teachers.
There is no doubt that in the constituencies there has been a political campaign on education orchestrated by the Opposition. It has been unscrupulous and unhelpful and has done education no service at all. I have made a point of visiting schools in my constituency in Norwich, and I am well aware of the situation in Norfolk. The Secretary of State for Education is right when she says

that schools problems should be examined objectively, discussed properly, and where there are difficulties—here I agree with Opposition Members—they should be debated and tackled. But that is not the same as a mega-political campaign that does education no good.
In Norfolk we recently had a meeting of governors and parents, and schools have been advised, unwisely I believe, to go beyond their deficits and to set illegal budgets. I agree with the Norfolk politicians who are telling the governors and parents that they should reconsider before plunging their schools into the red. I am glad to see one of the Opposition Members nodding in agreement, because it is the Labour leader of the Norfolk education committee who is giving that advice.
I am happy to support the Government amendment. After all, since 1979 there has been a substantial increase in education spending under the Conservative Government, and more money is available for local authorities than there was last year. But my main aim tonight is to highlight the Governments determination to improve standards and choice in education—and choice extends to methods of funding.
I believe that perhaps we should have moved more quickly to direct funding of schools by the state. I prefer the grant-maintained system, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster supports so enthusiastically, as do many of my hon. Friends. It represents a step in the right direction.
I support that mode of funding because of the greater transparency that it provides. Arguments about education would not be mixed up with standard spending assessments and local authorities if school funding were not mixed up with the complications of local authority funding. That is the problem. The problem is not the excellent performance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is doing an excellent job, but the way in which schools are funded. I support those who say that we should have more direct funding and expand the grant-maintained sector where possible.

Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thompson: No, I shall not, because of the time limit; otherwise I should have been happy to do so.
I must refer to an important matter of which I have personal experience. The Opposition opposed the idea of grant-maintained schools, root and branch. I know that because I was on the Committee considering the legislation that introduced it. I am not sure what the Oppositions present view is; perhaps there will be more time to debate that on another occasion. However, they opposed it, root and branch, at the time, as they always oppose attempts to give parents, teachers and children greater diversity and choice in education.
Opposition Members may have forgotten what happened in the past, but I have not, because I entered teaching in 1960—at Manchester grammar school, which is in the news at the moment. I hope that Opposition Members will listen carefully to what I say because the Labour party, in Manchester and elsewhere, opposed everything that stood in the way of steamrollering in the comprehensive system. Whatever one may feel about comprehensive schools—and there are many good ones—the manner in which they were introduced did damage to


education from which the country has still not yet recovered. That was done by Shirley Williams and by Anthony Crosland, who said:
if its the last thing I do, Im going to destroy every grammar school in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
The damage was done at that time, and that is why direct grant schools—such as Manchester grammar school, Bradford grammar school and many others—were forced, against their will and better judgment, to leave the state system.
I do not have time to say very much about this matter, but I remember the tradition of Manchester grammar school because I taught there. The tradition was to help poorer pupils who were bright to have the very best opportunities, and many Opposition Members and civil servants have gained from education at those schools.
The Labour party forced those schools to go independent. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who brackets those schools with other public schools. There is a difference, as the tradition of direct grant schools is to help poorer people. Labour was responsible for the plight of such schools.
The Labour party is still opposed to selection. Having read recent reports on the matter, I know that Manchester grammar school—even if it returns to the state, which it wants to do as that is true to its traditions—still believes in selection. I heard the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), and it is clear that Labour is still implacably opposed to selection. It is still on the egalitarian ticket which is doing so much damage to education, and it will have a problem in the future.
The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is important, because direct grant schools are still tremendous schools and everyone here recognises that. I hope that all Members will think seriously about ideas which have been put forward for their future. Perhaps the Schools Funding Council, or even the grant-maintained schools concept, is appropriate, but I understand the funding implications which lie behind that.
I think that I have made my point about the difficulties that the Opposition have in terms of education. It is the same old problem of levelling everyone down which always destroys Labours education policies; it could do so again. That is why I support the Governments amendment. We are right to go for choice and diversity and to encourage good standards, not only in our direct grant schools but in all schools. I hope that Ministers will continue to aim to fund education as much as they can, but—more importantly—that they will continue to pursue policies which will lead to the best quality of education for our young people.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: This is an important debate on the most important asset of this nation—our children and their future education—and it is right to try to focus attention on what the Government are doing.
I wish to refer to a letter that appeared in the Burnley Express last Friday which underlines the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). In the main, the people who are leading the opposition to what is happening are not county councillors or Members of Parliament, but the parents and governors who

recognise what is happening. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) referred to the involvement of parents and governors in the issue; if we want them to be genuinely involved in the local management of schools, we must take account of what was in that letter.
The letter stated:
As a school governor and parent, I am appalled at the horrendous cuts in school budgets which the Government is to impose in the financial year 1995/96 … If letters arrive by the sackful we may be able to persuade the Government to stop these swingeing cuts which are about to befall schools and, ultimately, if left alone will destroy our education system.
Many parents and governors—they are not involved in politics, and are not Conservatives, Liberals or Labour supporters—say that, following the introduction of local management of schools they have been given responsibilities to do certain things, but they have not been given the finances to do the job. Many of them do not understand that, because they believe that the Government have given them the responsibility and genuinely expect them to do the job. That is why they are now concerned at the further tightening of the financial screw which will occur this year.
The front-page headline of the Lancashire Evening Telegraph last night was Savage Staff Cuts At Schools. The story underneath went on to say:
Secondary schools throughout East Lancashire are facing cutbacks averaging £100,000 each and are having to ask two or three teachers to take early retirement.
At least one school is also considering spending more than it has been allowed by Lancashire County Council to try to stave off the worst effects of the most savage cuts in years.
A teacher from St Theodores high school in my constituency said:
We are reducing our staff level by three. They will be taking early retirement. Spending on capitation—books and equipment—is frozen at last years level which is almost the same as the previous years. Repairs and maintenance will be down to essential, day-to-day repairs.
The editorial of the Lancashire Evening Telegraph yesterday stated:
The cruel truth is that for the sake of a relatively small amount of cash, everyone is suffering. Children, the most important people of all, tomorrows citizens who will ultimately hold the future of this country in their hands, will receive the direct hit.
Then there are dedicated and already hard-pressed teachers wondering whether they will be out on the streets next week.
Parents, too, are worried sick about their childrens future worrying if they will get the attention they need, whether those with special needs will have enough help, and whether even the brightest can manage to cope against a background of cutbacks and decaying buildings … The latest round of cuts is an iniquity. The pain is not limited to Lancashire, it is being felt all over the country.
Things have gone too far this time. Before long, one way or another, those responsible can expect the caning they deserve.
We all want the opportunity to make those responsible pay for the cuts. They should be put into opposition, and let us take over the Government and provide money for education, as one of our priorities is to ensure that education is provided with the funds that it needs.
I have been in correspondence in recent weeks with Ministers, including the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools whose word processor must be


churning out replies by the dozen. The Minister made a number of wrong statements in a letter that he sent to me. He stated:
Allowing for the reform of inter-authority recruitment, Lancashires education SSA for 1995–96 represents an increase of 1.4 per cent. (almost £7 million)—above the national average increase of 1.2 per cent.
What the Minister did not say was that that 1.4 per cent. is tied directly to the increase in the number of children within the county of Lancashire. Last year, Lancashire got 2.3 per cent. against the average at that time of 2.7 per cent. because of the increase in the number of children on that occasion. He also failed to say that the figure is less than the rate of inflation. If so, it is really a cut, however anyone may wish to look at it, and the Government cannot get away with saying that it is not a cut.
The Minister went on to refer in his letter to school balances of some £700 million at the end of March 1994, adding that
it is not unreasonable to think that some at least of this sum could be applied towards the pay settlement where it is possible for that to happen.
The Minister also says that that money should be used to help with school repairs and maintenance, as well as with the pay settlement; so he wants to use it twice. Neither he nor the Secretary of State know what the balances will be at the end of the current financial year. It must be taken into account that it is not spare money hanging around in school coffers. Each school needs to keep about 3 to 5 per cent. so that they do not run into deficit and have to borrow money. Almost all schools have committed projects on which they wish to spend that money to enable them to provide a better education to the children whom they teach.
The Under-Secretary of State for Schools then said:
How Lancashire determines its spending priorities for the services for which it is responsible is solely a matter for the County Council.
What nonsense when, because of how local government is now funded, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Education effectively fix the budget for every county council and borough council in the country. There is no flexibility or room for manoeuvre as budgets are fixed and rigid.
Lancashire county council is spending 108 per cent. of the SSA which it is deemed necessary to spend on education. That means that Lancashire county council regards education as so important that it spends 8 per cent. more than the Government wish it to spend. What the Minister fails to say is, if Lancashire county council spends more, where that money will come from. It is capped, so the money must come from cuts in other services. Should those be in social services? Should we close more homes for the elderly? What should we do? What the Minister says is nonsense.
In her speech today, the Secretary of State inadvertently misconstrued the evidence—I choose my words carefully—that was supplied to her. She said that Lancashire county council chose to impose cuts in education amounting to £19 million when officers recommended cuts of £13 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has checked on those figures during this debate. He found that the officers gave an illustrative figure if the cuts were to be 4 per cent. They also gave a big list of cuts totalling £42 million from which the county council could select. Ultimately, it had to come forward with cuts of 5.5 per cent., which is the £19 million to which the Secretary of State referred, so it was wrong to give the impression which the Secretary of State gave.
Lancashire county council does not have enough money to provide its services. It is time that the Government gave it more money and allowed it to provide the education that our children need.

Sir Peter Emery: First, I apologise to the House for being absent for 45 minutes. I had to leave the Chamber to take the Chair of the Procedure Select Committee, but I hastened back immediately. I was determined to speak because of how the Liberal Democrats in Devon have set out to mislead the people of Devon and because of the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who, in Goebbels fashion, kept repeating a misrepresentation about the Government. The Government are not discredited. They have a new desire to ensure that people are properly represented, and the Opposition had better realise that in the next two years.
I make the accusation against the Liberal Democrats because, even before they had agreed a budget for Devon, their chief education officer said that, as the Government had cut Devons grant for education, teachers would have to be sacked. Parents do not think that education should be a political football. They are interested in their childrens education and want that carried out properly and as efficiently as possible.
Let us look at the truth. On the accusation by the county council that funding for education was being cut, in 1994–95, the standard spending assessment for education in Devon was £321.7 million. For the coming year, it is £328.4 million—no cut whatever but an increase of £6.8 million, the equivalent of more than £51 for every child in education in the county of Devon.
On the accusation that the Conservative party has paid no attention to education and are not interested in it, let us look at the education SSA for Devon over the past five-year period. In 1990–91, it was £276 million; by 1992–93, it had increased to £343 million. Given that, in 1993–94, sixth forms and FE colleges were taken away, expenditure for Devon was estimated to decrease by £34 million, but it still increased to £314 million that year. As I said, in 1994–95, it increased to £321 million. Whichever way we look at the matter—whether we put the £34 million at the beginning or at the end, because statistically it can be done either way—the SSA for education in Devon rose by between 30 and 35 per cent. over those five years, which represents a direct gain for Devon.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the figures provided by the House of Commons Library, based on a parliamentary question, show that in real terms, the cuts in SSA per primary school pupil in Devon are £46 and, per secondary school


pupil, £178? Will he also confirm that the failure to provide funding for the teachers pay award is costing Devon county council £5 million?

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman is so misleading as to be wrong. What I am trying to explain is that net institutional expenditure for nursery and primary education in Devon is £1,879 per pupil, which is the average of any county in the country. The accusation that Devon is doing worse than other counties is wrong. It is interesting to note that expenditure per pupil in the nursery and primary and the secondary sectors has increased. In 1992–93, Devon was 24th and 25th respectively in the national league and in 1995–96 it was 19th and 18th respectively as a result of the increases which the Government have provided. That is how the Government have been assisting education in Devon.
What is so wrong is that Devon county council is taking money away from education and putting it into other services. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will he consider the fact that education SSA should be ring-fenced so that local authorities cannot use education SSA for purposes other than education? Despite the increase in funding for Devon of £6.8 million, most schools have had their education budgets cut. How can that possibly be right?
Let us consider the alternatives that Devon was given. A budget was suggested by the Devon Conservative group, which would have ensured another £4.4 million for education in Devon and would have restricted the amount to the capping level. However, the Liberal Democrats have chosen a budget that will have to be capped. They voted the Conservative budget down. That cannot make sense and must be wrong.
Spending per pupil in the country has increased by almost 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Spending per pupil on books and equipment has increased by 31 per cent. in real terms. Let us consider the teachers, because those are the people whom most of us want to look after. The average teachers pay will be between £20,000 and £22,000 a year from April 1995. Since 1979, the average teachers pay has increased by 36 per cent. That is considerably greater than the average increase in wages of 23 per cent. for the rest of the country. Teacher vacancies today are fewer than at nearly any time in our history.
What are the alternatives? We are ensuring that there is a national curriculum; what does the Labour party wish to do about that? It opposed the national curriculum, but I think that it will now accept it. The regular testing and assessment of children and students is an essential part of our education reform. The informal revolution involving the publication of results is a major benefit for parents and must be judged as such; and the examination results, GCSE and A-levels, are better than ever. That is what Conservative education policy is doing; it does not resemble the terrifying story that we heard from the Opposition Front Bench.
What do the Liberal Democrats want to do? They want to remove the right of parents to choose their childrens school; they oppose grant-maintained schools; they want to abolish objective testing and performance tables; and

they want to end the assisted places scheme and scrap A-levels, although I think that they are having second thoughts about that now.

Mr. Don Foster: No we are not.

Sir Peter Emery: We now have a definite statement.
The Liberal Democrats also want further and higher education institutes to submit to local authority control.
Is that what the country really wants? [HON. MEMBERS: No.] Of course it is not. Therefore we need to ensure that we stop having battles such as this about education. Let us make it absolutely clear what the Conservative party has achieved. If we let people in Devon know what the Conservative party will do for education in Devon, we will be a lot better off.

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make before I call the next speaker. In his speech moving the motion now before the House, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) used some words that were challenged at the time by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools. I explained to the House that my attention was disturbed at the time, and I undertook to look at the transcript. I have now been able to do so.
The hon. Member for Brightside was challenging the validity of education statistics given by members of the Government at various times in the recent past. Although he explained later the meaning he intended to convey, in my view he went too far in describing the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as ethically challenged and saying, in his words, that they—that is, Ministers—cannot tell the truth.
I know that the House can get over-excited in major debates of this kind and that words are used which, when read on the page, appear clearly unparliamentary. While accepting what the hon. Member said after my second intervention, I think it would clear the matter up if he would formally withdraw the two brief unparliamentary phrases to which I have now drawn attention.

Mr. Blunkett: Madam Speaker, I was aware of your concern on the issue of the second phrase that has been used, and I unconditionally agree to withdraw that. I should be grateful, because it is the first time that it has been raised with me, in relation to the phrase that I used in respect of the Chief Secretary—

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Member were to look at the words in the dictionary as to the meaning of being ethically challenged, it is a question of morally not knowing right from wrong, and it is quite a serious parliamentary statement. As I said, I understand the hon. Gentleman did try to clear the matter up later, but I should be much obliged if he would withdraw, so that we might proceed with the debate.

Mr. Blunkett: Of course I accept your ruling, and I would not for a minute accuse Ministers of not knowing what they were doing.

Madam Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we can now proceed with the debate.

Mr. Greg Pope: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on his speech in opening the debate, which he did extraordinarily well in the face of what appeared to be organised disruption by the yobbo tendency on the Conservative Benches.
I found the Secretary of States comments—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down and hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pope: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I found the Secretary of States comments, although not surprising, certainly disappointing. She seemed to be trying to blame everyone else for the cuts in education rather than taking any responsibility herself. Education Ministers have a duty to take responsibility for what happens to the countrys education service, but they have failed to do so.
My constituency is a marginal seat which was held by the Conservatives until the most recent election. By no stretch of the imagination could it be described as Labour heartland, but I have to tell Conservative Members that the Government are no longer despised or loathed in my constituency—it has gone far beyond that. The vast majority of my constituents, even those who voted for the Conservatives at the last election, now hold the Government in contempt, because the Government are never prepared to accept that it may be they who have made a mistake or got it wrong.
As councillors struggle to balance budgets and school governors are confronted with the prospect of having to sack teachers, what is the reaction of the Government? Is it to take some of the responsibility for that? Is it to show some leadership? No, it is not. The Governments reaction is to blame councils, governors, the BBC—anyone rather than themselves. It is no wonder that they are held in utter contempt.
I have had letters from representatives of every type of school in my constituency—aided schools, council-maintained schools, primary schools and secondary schools—all expressing genuine outrage at the level of cuts confronting them. I have even received a letter from the chair of governors of a grant-maintained school, although there are no GM schools in my constituency—parents and governors in Hyndburn have far more sense than to want the education service to be dismantled in the way that GM status implies.
Following the comments of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who is no longer in her place, about the so-called benefits of GM status in Lancashire, it is interesting to consider what the chair of governors of St. Wilfrids GM school in Blackburn, which is in a neighbouring constituency to mine and which some of my constituents attend, had to say about the effects of Government policy. In a letter to the Secretary of State, he said:
even after allowing for a known reduction of 2.5 staff, and a possible further reduction of two staff, a drastic cut in spending on capitation items will be inevitable and together these will have a very serious effect on the curriculum. If part of the cost of the pay award has to be borne as well as these reductions, it will not be possible for a budget to be approved which would enable the schools commitments to pupils to be met.
There we have it.
GM schools are the Governments flagship. Yet the chairman of governors of a GM school in Lancashire admits that, as a result of the Governments funding of GM schools as well as local education authority schools, his school will not be able to meet its commitments to pupils. That is a disgrace. It is no wonder that the promised avalanche of school opt-outs has failed to materialize.
The chairman of governors of St. Wilfrids GM school and the great number of other people who have written to me are not Labour party activists. They are not even Labour party members. I have no idea what their political affiliations are. They entered the teaching profession and became school governors because they cared about children and wanted to contribute to a successful education system, and they are extremely angry about the current situation.
A secondary school in my constituency was recently praised by the Office of Standards in Education. It is now about to lose 3.6 teachers. A large primary school in Accrington, in an area of intense social deprivation, a school where four out of five pupils have English as a second language, has lost three teachers in the past six months as a result of the Governments cuts in section 11 funding. Now the head teacher telephones me to say that it will have to lose another three teachers, possibly another four, as a result of that round of cuts.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pope: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) has only just returned to the Chamber and my speaking time is limited to 10 minutes.
Leaving aside the current round of cuts that the Government are inflicting on the education system, I should be grateful if, in summing up the debate, the Minister could explain how he justifies the cuts in section 11 funding for children and teachers in schools such as the one to which I have referred in my constituency. It is nothing short of an act of barbarism meted out to the most vulnerable children who are struggling within the education system. The Minister should be ashamed at the way in which the Government have cut that funding.
A primary school in another part of my constituency has received a favourable report from Ofsted, which found good relationships between staff and pupils and very good student behaviour. It is a school of which we can all be proud. However, the head teacher has told me that that school is to lose the equivalent of 2.3 teachers. One of the year 2 classes is to disappear, which will drive up the number of pupils in the other classes. Teachers will lose what little non-contact time they have at present.
That is happening in one school after another, not just in my constituency but up and down the country. Ofsted inspectors make constructive suggestions about how schools can improve, and the schools are keen to implement those suggestions, but they then find themselves unable to do so because they no longer have the resources.
Decision making in schools up and down the country is being driven increasingly not by educational requirements, but by budgetary needs. Children with special educational needs who attend mainstream schools—particularly those children who have emotional and behavioural difficulties—are not being catered for as


effectively this year as they were last year, and they will not be provided for as effectively next year as they are being provided for now.
The Government have stubbornly failed to comprehend that the code of practice—which the Opposition welcomed—has resource implications. Until they do so, the problems will be compounded. There are increasing health and safety risks as children are taught in overcrowded classrooms, with dilapidated furniture and equipment that schools cannot afford to replace.
I know that some Conservative Members will seek to blame local education authorities for those problems. I have some experience of the distortions being peddled—not by hon. Members, of course, Madam Speaker, but by Tory central office—about my local education authority in Lancashire. It has been suggested that Lancashire has one bureaucrat for every 17 teachers, but that is not true. To arrive at that figure, one would have to include every educational psychologist in the county, every educational welfare officer, every adviser, and all the staff who deal with statements. They are not pen-pushers or bureaucrats; those people provide essential, core, front-line statutory education services. If Conservative Members do not understand, it shows how much they have to learn about education in this country.
It has been said that Lancashire should allocate more funding to schools so that they would have more money to spend. But Lancashire already spends far in excess of the Governments allocation target on education. Most of the centrally retained funds in Lancashire relate to statements and even if they were delegated to schools it would not compensate for the cash cuts that the Government have imposed.
There has been distortion after distortion, as the Government have sought to evade responsibility for the cuts. They said that Lancashire has large cash reserves. Again, that is not true. The local authority is operating on a minimal budget.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pope: No, I will not give way.
Conservative Members have suggested that Lancashire has too many surplus places. Yet Lancashire has met and exceeded every Department for Education target for reducing those surpluses. If every surplus place in Lancashire were abolished tomorrow, it would save the authority £500,000. But the authority is facing education cuts of £28.3 million in the coming financial year.
The Government are comprehensively failing my children, the children of my constituents, and children up and down the land. The Secretary of State has sought to avoid any responsibility for those cuts, and I am sure that the Minister will do the same in his winding-up speech: he will try to shift the responsibility on to local education authorities, governors and anyone else. But we know who is really responsible: the Secretary of State, the Minister and their colleagues in the Treasury who are more concerned about taking a penny off income tax in six months time in a squalid attempt to bribe the electors yet again rather than spending the money where it is really needed—in the classrooms in my constituency and in those up and down the country. The Governments policy is a disgrace.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. David Evennett.

Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome the opportunity to draw attention to the situation in schools in my constituency, and particularly that in the 15 primary schools which I have visited during the past year. I did so in response to an organised campaign urging parents to complain about over-sized classes, adverse comparisons between our education standard spending assessment—[Interruption.] Is there a problem, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: Yes. I called Mr. Evennett, but I am very willing to hear from Mr. Atkinson.

Mr. Atkinson: I am relieved to hear that, Madam Speaker. I was saying that I visited 15 primary schools in my constituency in response to an organised campaign urging parents to complain about over-sized classes, the adverse comparisons of our education SSA with that of neighbouring counties, and a lack of resources generally.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools for his helpful responses to those concerns. He pointed out that parents and teachers can be misled into making false comparisons between the SSAs of local education authorities, and that my local education authority of Dorset has not done at all badly in recent years in response to our representations. A 27 per cent. funding increase between 1991 and 1993 was followed by a 4.9 per cent. increase last year.
I cannot argue with those figures, which are well ahead of inflation. I also cannot argue with the trend in the amount that we receive per pupil compared with other LEAs. It is moving in the right direction. Nevertheless, it is clear from the meetings that I have had with head teachers and from the visits that I have paid to primary schools in my constituency that those schools are deteriorating. Their essential problem is overcrowding, with classes of 35 or more packed into rooms designed to take 25 or fewer. At one school, two toilets serve 100 boys, and in another a mobile classroom has been condemned for eight years. That is simply unacceptable.
Why has that situation arisen? It is simply because the LEA has failed to anticipate and plan for the school population explosion that we are experiencing in the Bournemouth borough. It seems that our present strategic planning system fails to match increasing education provision—that is, school places and class sizes—with planning permissions which inevitably attract young families. It is simply irresponsible to allow new housing developments without providing for the education of the children who move into them. Housing association developments are approved without taking account of the extra provision for special needs that will inevitably be required. I give an unreserved welcome, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), to the Governments acceptance last week of the Local Government Commissions recommendation that Bournemouth should return to unitary authority status and become its own LEA once again.
In spite of that situation, we have no complaints about our teachers. The education standards that are achieved, despite those difficulties, are above the national average. The schools are passing their first ever Ofsted inspections, which is a great tribute to the teachers professionalism, dedication and commitment. I believe that insufficient public acknowledgement is given to the teachers and head teachers who are delivering the educational achievements


for which we claim credit. My hon. Friend the Minister will also be encouraged to learn that those teachers whom I met were unanimous in welcoming the more streamlined curriculum, the simplified testing, the 20 per cent. free periods, the promise of less paperwork, and not least the promise of no more changes for the next five years. I hope that that promise will be borne out in fact.
Teachers also welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the review bodys recommended pay increase. I hope and expect that my LEA will enable teachers to receive that increase in full. I have no problem with the policy for LEAs to make provision for teachers pay in their budgets. That is what local government is or should be all about, although this years SSA settlement represents the greatest challenge since education spending was cut by £1.6 billion under the last Labour Government.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her opening speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it plain in his Budget statement last November that this year is the crunch year for getting our public borrowing down and I fully accept his strategy. If he succeeds, parents, governors and teachers can expect the increased resources for our schools that they rightly demand. What I should like to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend is that the commitment that the Government are honouring to increase resources substantially to the NHS should also be extended to education.
There should be more resources for special needs to ensure the success of the new code of practice which teachers have welcomed. Without extra funding, there is a real danger that some schools will refuse to recognise those children requiring special needs. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies to this debate, I hope that he will assure me that when Bournemouth becomes an LEA in two years time its education SSA will reflect our urban labour costs better than the present SSA of Dorset has been able to do.
Finally, I hope that every school in my constituency will continue to keep the issue of grant-maintained status on their governors agendas. They owe it to their pupils and to parents not to ignore the resounding success stories of grant-maintained schools. As the headmaster of St. Walbergas school, the only grant-maintained primary school in Bournemouth, told me last month, it has enabled him and his governors to decide their own priorities, it has been good for his school, and he would not go back. That is the message that my right hon. Friend and her team must continue to bring to the attention of every school, notwithstanding the obstacles being put in the way by Labour and Liberal LEAs.

Mr. Don Touhig: Until a month or so before I came to the House, I was chair of my county council finance committee, and for the past few years, together with my colleagues on Gwent county council, I have strived to protect front-line services from the worst excesses of public spending cuts imposed by the Government.
In the financial settlement for local authorities announced by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Wales, councils were told that they could expect an

increase of 2.7 per cent. in funding for the coming year, but when the funding for police was stripped away, and with it the provision for careers services, the real increase is a paltry 0.7 per cent. Against that background, LEAs, working in partnership with school governors, sought to protect our childrens education.
I have been a school governor since I was 18, and I have never known a time when teachers have been more demoralised and so many want to leave the profession. They are good and experienced teachers, such as those I met at last weeks lobby; they are teachers whom the education service can ill afford to lose, but under the present Government they feel undervalued and taken for granted. They are blamed for falling education standards and for all societys ills, from rising crime to industrialists saying that they cannot recruit enough skilled people.
The Governments failure to give teachers the respect that their contribution to society deserves has brought us to the sorry state we are in today, as school governors, many of them supporters of the Conservative party, are faced with the prospect of sacking teachers because they cannot afford to employ them.
The Government will not fund the teachers pay award. What is the reason for that? Can the country not afford it, or do they have something else in mind? Last year, one of the schools in Gwent balloted parents on whether or not it should go grant-maintained. The parents rejected the notion of leaving the partnership with the LEA, but the pro-opt-out campaigners were able to distribute to every parent promoting grant-maintained status a rather classy video produced by the Department for Education at a cost of £64,000. They have no money for textbooks or for teachers pay, but they have plenty of money for political propaganda. That is the record of the Government.
In commenting on the case being made across the country for the Government to allocate additional funds to meet the costs of the teachers pay award, the Chancellor has insisted that LEAs have sufficient funds to meet the award and to fund schools adequately, if only they would reduce the wasteful bureaucracy in town and county halls.
In many LEAs, Gwent included, the councils budget strategy for some years—certainly since local management of schools was introduced—has been designed to protect school budget shares despite cuts imposed by Government.
In the past three years, Gwent county council has taken almost £18 million from balances to sustain front-line services such as education. Schools in Gwent hold almost £8 million in balances, but the money is not evenly shared. Some larger schools have built up balances intended for projects in the coming year. Some have a few hundred pounds, and others have nothing at all.
The formula is so constructed that we cannot do anything to help the schools that are worst off. It is not possible to top-slice school budgets to help less well-off schools, because that would cut right across the board. It would be taking from the poor to help the rich—something that the Conservative party has been doing ever since it came to power.
As for the so-called wasteful central bureaucracy, many education authorities have pursued a vigorous policy of scrutinising all vacancies in order to reduce costs. They have slimmed down central staffing levels, and constantly keep them under review.
In a typical LEA, the proportion of the total education budget controlled by schools themselves is around 65 per cent., the remaining 35 per cent. being used on nursery education, which, despite the sweet words of the Prime Minister, is still the statutory responsibility of local education bodies to provide. They also use it for adult education, public libraries and the so-called bureaucratic central services.
What are the bureaucratic central services that the Conservative party would sweep away without so much as a second glance? They include services provided directly for pupils and students: the operation of home-to-school and home-to-college transport, educational psychology services, services for pupils with special needs, and the operation of discretionary awards to students.
Who are the bureaucrats, and how does sacking them affect learning opportunities? The bureaucrats are those who, for example, prepare statements on special educational needs for pupils with learning difficulties. They are the people who administer free school meals for pupils from families on income support, and there are plenty of those as a result of the Governments dependency culture policy. They deal with pupil welfare and truancy. They support pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds who have poor or little English. They are the architects and engineers who plan and implement education building programmes. They are the craftsmen and technicians who organise and carry out repairs and maintenance to schools. They provide financial management support for heads and governing bodies. They organise the payment of salaries and wages to school staffs, and educate children in hospital or at home if they cannot attend school.
Those people advise and support teachers in the implementation of the national curriculum, and with the number of changes that the Government have made to the national curriculum, that has almost become an industry in itself. They teach pupils to swim or to play a musical instrument. They administer Government regulations on the citizens charter, student awards and grants for education support and training, and ensure that the education Acts are implemented.
Public service is labour-intensive. We cannot take teachers out of the classrooms and sit children in front of computer screens and say that that is education. We cannot sack home care assistants and give every pensioner in the land a microwave and say that that is care in the community, and we cannot take bobbies off the beat, put video cameras on street corners and say that that is policing.
When council budgets are squeezed and various departments compete for funds for services, the number of posts in the central services of an LEA are obviously reduced—to what effect? Parents have to pay for or contribute towards the cost of their children receiving tuition in swimming or a musical instrument. Nursery schools are closed or reduced in size. Tuition for children too ill to attend schools is reduced.
School buildings are not maintained adequately. Awards to students attending further education classes are reduced or delayed. Fewer adult education classes are provided. LEA youth clubs are closed, often with a social price to pay. Delays occur in providing pupils with statements for special educational needs or free school meals. Advice and support for teachers attempting to

deliver the full national curriculum are reduced, or totally eliminated in some subjects. Libraries are closed, or have restricted opening hours; school meal prices are raised.
In other words, parents may have to pay more for services. The support given to pupils by local education authorities is reduced. The community as a whole loses learning opportunities in adult education classes and youth activities. Schools are given less support in the fulfilment of their responsibilities, and buildings fall into disrepair.
The Government fail to recognise that local education authorities are non-profit-making organisations, whose only reason for existence is to deliver education in partnership with school governors. LEAs are democratically run by elected councillors, who often work in coalition with teachers, parents and representatives of religious denominations. There is none of the quango state there.
Parents and teachers recognise the value of the support services provided by LEAs: they know that sacking those employed in support services to find money for the teachers pay award is no answer. Adequate funds for teachers and those who support them is needed if we are to deliver a rich and meaningful education service—but I fear that hell will freeze over before the Conservative party recognises that.

7 pm

Mr. David Evennett: Education is important to everyone, not just those going through the school system or parents of schoolchildren. It highlights major differences between the main political parties. This country needs a well-educated and well-trained work force to compete in world markets, and the Governments education policies will ensure that we secure it.
I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who confirmed what people in my borough of Bexley have always believed—that Liberal Democrats have no education policies, local or national. Conservative Members have a distinctive education philosophy that encompasses opportunity, choice and diversity; we also strongly believe in standards, discipline and testing in schools. We want parents, as the primary educators of children who have a vital role to play, to be allowed choice. Labour does not believe in opportunity and choice for parents: the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) contained no policies, and no concern for parents or standards.
I was privileged to attend a grammar school in the 1960s, where I was given a very good education. Such schools were destroyed by the Labour party in the 1960s and 1970s, and replaced by huge monolithic comprehensives. In the 1970s, I was a school governor in Hackney, and saw at first hand what Labour local government was like under a Labour Administration. We endured appalling standards, demoralised teachers and a general decline in education. During the past 16 years, there has been a gradual improvement, with education reforms, investment and development.
The untruths that we have heard from Opposition Members must be nailed. They do not like to be reminded of their record when Labour was in office in the 1960s and 1970s, when resources were reduced and standards fell. Expectations were low then, and teachers were demoralised. We know, however, that, since 1979, spending per pupil has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms; spending on books and equipment has risen by 55


per cent. in real terms. Opposition Members do not like to hear those figures, but we must continually remind them of the facts.
Teacher vacancies are now at an all-time low, and teachers pay has increased by 59 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is a real achievement, thanks to Conservative policies and Conservative government: that is what is really happening in education, and what has happened for the past 16 years.
I want to concentrate on two aspects of education: nursery education and education for those over 16, in which regard I think the Government still have work to do. Much of the debate over the past 30 years has centred on secondary schools—their type and organisation, the implications of the national curriculum, the effects of local management of schools and grant-maintained status and so forth.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: All Tory policies.

Mr. Evennett: Indeed they are—all opposed by Labour, all supported by parents and all doing good in the education world. The Government should be congratulated on re-establishing the foundations of good, balanced, effective secondary education: it now provides choice, diversity, opportunity and improving standards.
In primary education, too, considerable strides have been made. The return to good, traditional teaching is bringing results. A number of primary schools in my constituency and my borough of Bexley never abandoned the traditional approach, and continue to flourish. St Paulinus Church of England school in Crayford, under the leadership of Mr. Vinall, has an excellent reputation, as has Hillsgrove school in Welling, which I visited last Friday. I was extremely impressed by the work of the head teacher, Mrs. Spooncer, and her staff. As I toured the school with the chairman of the governors, Councillor John Raggett, I observed much good practice, achievement and enthusiastic learning.
That is what we have achieved in 16 years of Conservative government: that is the real story of education today—not the doom and gloom that we hear from the Labour party, or the non-policies advanced by the hon. Member for Bath.
I commend the Prime Ministers commitment to expanding nursery provision. My borough of Bexley already has a rolling programme of increased provision, established by the previous Conservative-controlled council. I believe that children benefit from learning and socialising before they reach the statutory school age. I am well aware that some 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds are already involved in some form of pre-school activity, and I support the expansion of nursery education, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to abandon the Conservative belief in choice and variety.
The establishment of a monolithic provision by local authorities would be a disaster. I strongly support the voucher system: not only would parents be allowed a real choice, but the providers of nursery education would have to ensure that they were offering parents and pupils the highest standard of service.
I am also concerned about the possible effects on playgroups. My constituency has some excellent playgroups, providing a first-class service for children,

parents and the local community. I do not want such good institutions to be destroyed. My recent visits to local groups—including a first-class group at Christchurch in Erith—have shown me the educational content, the dedication of group leaders, the support of mothers and the enthusiasm of the children. We must not destroy good organisations; we must ensure that balance and choice are available in future provision.
Much has been achieved in post-16 education, and there is a good story to tell. I congratulate the Ministers, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, who recently visited our local university in south-east London—the university of Greenwich, where so much good work has been done.
I stress that, like other speakers, I strongly support the traditional A-level examination and school sixth forms, both of which provide a benchmark of excellence which should not be destroyed. Sixth-form education also enhances schools in many ways. Sixth-form education and A-levels are not popular with the Labour party, but Conservative Members believe that they have a vital part to play in education for those over 16.
My borough is fortunate in having a first-class further education college, Bexley college. Under its principal, Dr. Jim Healey, it is another success story. The Governments policy of giving colleges autonomy and freedom from LEA control has helped the sector enormously. The expansion of Bexley colleges pupil numbers and courses is a worthwhile consequence of that development. More resources, vocational courses, students and mature students have given post-16 education a boost. I welcome the Governments achievements. I am a great believer in continuing education, and welcome the post-16 development.
We have only to remember the way the Inner London education authority operated to know that money alone does not guarantee good education. More money per pupil was put into ILEA than into any other authority. More money was also wasted by that profligate authority. The results were disastrous. We abolished ILEA and gave more power to parents, teachers and governors.
That is the way forward in increasing success and raising standards, and Government policies are the right policies. They are supported by parents, and the results will show in educational achievement—and the pupils will be the beneficiaries.

Mr. Peter Snape: I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). In 21 years in the House, I have never heard a more snivelling and ingratiating speech. Such a speech makes Uriah Heep sound like a man of principle. It was appalling.
The one good thing about the hon. Gentlemans presence in the House is that at least it means that he is not lecturing schoolchildren. One can say little else about such a speech. Any resemblance between it and educational realities is purely coincidental. I hope that the hon. Gentlemans opponents at the next general election, whoever they are, will point that out.
The picture in the metropolitan borough of Sandwell is a good deal less rosy than that painted by Conservative Members. The four of us who have the honour to


represent constituencies in that borough are, as you know, Madam Speaker, seeking a meeting with Ministers to discuss education provision and the shortfall arising from the settlement that we are debating. The capital programme allocation for the borough totals only £275,000 for a population of 250,000 people, which is parsimonious to say the least. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will offer some hope.
At that level, the settlement represents a loss of £1 million per annum on recent years. Given the problems and backlog of work in the primary and secondary sectors in Sandwell, the settlement is intolerable. For primary schools, there is a backlog of £10 million, including £8.5 million for three replacement schools for Warley infant, Black Heath primary and Great Bridge primary schools.
The head teacher and chair of governors of Tipton Green junior school in your constituency, Madam Speaker, have written to all four Members of Parliament about its phase 2 project, describing as a paltry sum the capital building allocation—particularly that for Tipton Green. Given that phase 1 has been completed, it would be scandalous and wasteful not to proceed with phase 2. I hope that the Minister will comment when he winds up, or when he meets the boroughs Members of Parliament, as I hope he will, in the near future.
There is a similarly sad story to be told in respect of secondary schools. We have heard much about the so-called irresponsibility of local education authorities. Most are controlled by the Labour party because of the present Governments prolonged incompetence. It will not do for Conservative Members to shrug off all responsibility for the crisis facing schools in Sandwell and elsewhere by blaming the LEA.
I will pick at random one item of secondary education expenditure in Sandwell—Menzies high school in my constituency, where a serious fire last year destroyed one building. The insurance claim shortfall for the cost of replacing that building is £500,000. One cannot blame the LEA, but the Government are giving no consideration to meeting that shortfall.
Dartmouth high school is the biggest LEA school in the west midlands, with more than 1,700 pupils. It faces a £1.1 million bill for replacements and general repairs. Its all-weather sports pitch cannot be used, because of lack of money for repairs. Three teachers retiring this year cannot be replaced, according to the chair of governors to whom I spoke this afternoon, because the school does not have the funds. He said, Its a blessing that we had a comparatively mild winter, because we have spent money allocated to the gas bill on general upkeep and repairs—broken windows and the other things that happen in schools these days. Again, no provision has been made for that in the schools capital grant settlement.
Worst of all for Dartmouth high school, given that its orchestra is well known throughout the west midlands, £7,000 has been cut from its music budget. What is wrong with the Government that they cannot see the damage being done to schools and education in areas such as mine?
Many figures have been bandied about, and most of those from the Secretary of State were misleading. In Sandwell, budget share per pupil in the primary sector in the financial year 1993–94 was £1,322. In 1995–96, it will fall to £1,319. The share per pupil is even worse in the secondary sector. In 1993–94, it was £2,041. In 1995–96, it will be down to £2,000.
Taking 1993–94 as a base, and allowing for inflation of 3 per cent. in 1994–95 and 2.5 per cent. in 1995–96, just to stand still Sandwell should have a budget share per primary pupil of £1,396, but it is receiving £77 less. In the secondary sector, it should have £2,155, but it will have £155 less than that per pupil.
Why is Sandwells allocation per pupil done on the cheap? Why do each of the pupils whom I and my hon. Friends represent have a budget share of £200 less than pupils in the borough of Westminster? Why do the Government think they can continue getting away with rigging standard spending assessments to favour a few chosen boroughs? There is no fairness in the allocation of resources, particularly for education, when a borough such as Sandwell suffers from real terms cuts.
Much has been said about the Governments failure to fund the teachers pay rise. It is a collective act of hypocrisy to agree a figure at national level but refuse to fund it, saying that it is someone elses problem and that local authorities such as Sandwell are supposed to find the money from their own resources. Do not the Government accept any responsibility for their decisions? Will it always be somebody elses fault? The Government are fooling nobody. One week ago, there was a lobby of thousands of teachers, governors and parents from all over the country. None of them is fooled by the Governments propaganda. They know full well who is to blame.
At least one good thing came out of that lobby. On the day of the lobby, national officers of the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters met in my office at Millbank. If those two unions can come together under one roof without falling out with each other, clearly something serious must have happened. They were not discussing wages, or funding the 2.7 per cent.; they knew who was to blame for that. They were more concerned, as professionals, about the damage being done to the education of the children for whom they feel responsible in boroughs such as mine.
The next election cannot come quickly enough for most Opposition Members—although of course the opposite applies to the Conservative party. The Government are planning to give away some money in taxes before the election. That is why money is being withheld from school budgets all over the country—to fund tax cuts. Meanwhile, the Government have done incalculable damage to our education infrastructure and the prospects of many of our children, especially in boroughs such as Sandwell. We shall hang that around their necks, and they will suffer for it at the next election.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I should like to sound a slightly different note. Although I hold no brief for Labour-controlled Nottinghamshire county council, I must point out that if it had adopted the budget that the Conservatives suggested, things would have been a lot easier. Like many other county councils, our county council must look much more carefully at its overall spending—that message has come through time and again this afternoon. The councils overtime bill for staff, for instance, is £10 million.
We have 20,000 surplus school places in our county: one in four desks is empty. That problem has persisted for many years. If the county did not have those surplus places, we would be able to fund every child by another £250. That is a fundamental point.
I must however suggest to Ministers, who sometimes believe that dealing with surplus places provides the only answer, that it may not. I have followed the advice frequently and rightly given us by the Secretary of State, and have found out what is going on in my local authority. We need to know that, although sometimes it is difficult to find out what is happening. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, with the resources available to his Department, to consider finding out, county by county, where there are inefficiencies and where improvements could be made, so that we can target and make responsible the people who should be far more active in funding our schools.
Here I sound the note of caution which has not thus far been expressed by any other Conservative Member. Ministers will be aware that there is a great deal of disquiet about how schools are to be funded this year—in Conservative as well as in Labour constituencies. I have expressed that concern in correspondence with the Secretary of State on behalf of schools, parents, teachers, and governors. I am sure that colleagues in the House have done the same.
What is not always clear—I hope to have the answer from my right hon. Friend when she replies to me—is what has gone wrong and who is at fault. Still, the anxiety is genuine, and it is non-political. We need to know exactly what funding is going into our schools.
I have corresponded with the director of education on the county council; he has been most helpful, and I have no complaints about how he has informed me of what is going on. He tells me that there has been a reduction in the aggregated schools budget in Nottinghamshire of £11.280 million for 1995–96. That represents almost exactly the equivalent of the amount that I quoted earlier which is paid out in overtime to county council staff.
I can accept a 1.2 per cent. increase this year, tough though it is. What I find more difficult is learning how school after school in my constituency is having trouble balancing its books for the coming year. I offer two examples. Tuxford comprehensive school, a fine, large school, is experiencing a cut of £160,000. That is extremely difficult to live with. It must be very difficult to maintain the schools standards following a cut of that order.
A school at the opposite end of the range, Muskham county primary school, is receiving £6,363 less than it got last year, while taking on five more pupils than it had last year. That brings its pupil numbers up to 138. The head quite properly wants to balance his books—he does not want to get into deficit—but the way he has to do so is worrying. He is cutting down on midday school supervision. His governors tell me that health and safety cover in the playground is minimal and a cause for worry. He is cutting his secretarial assistance to two and a half days a week. In a school of 138 pupils that is clearly ridiculous. He is doing most of his own typing. What a waste of a professional mans time! He is an excellent and experienced teacher, and this should not be happening.
Something has clearly gone wrong, and teachers, parents and governors tell us that it is our fault. So the time may have come for Ministers to look more closely at how schools are funded this year and at the effects of the cuts on education, school by school. This has gone beyond being a political matter. It is an education matter now.
It is quite true that the county council is guilty of inefficiency. In theory, the regime can be rejected at the next local elections, but that is of little comfort to parents and schools now.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Alexander: I am sorry, I have only three minutes left.
There is some mileage in the argument that the county has surplus school places. This afternoon, I took a deputation to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools to discuss the amalgamation of schools—not to object to it, but to make certain improving suggestions. Of course, until those amalgamations are approved and take place, the surplus places will not be available for savings for the county. Although we have far too many surplus school places, it is not always easy to wipe them out at a stroke and thereby to save money this year.
I also took up with the director of education the amount of school balances in the county. Interestingly, of the nearly £15 million of balances in the schools, 37 per cent. in primary schools and 43 per cent. in secondary schools is being used to pay for the schools survival this year. So we are right to point out that there are school balances that can be used, but sometimes we need to look more closely and see whether they are just floating about unused or whether they are allocated and unavailable. I am informed by the director that 77 per cent. of primary balances and 84 per cent. of secondary balances are specifically earmarked. If a school has no balances, it is not terribly satisfactory to be told that there are balances somewhere else. School by school, there is not a great deal of fat that can be used.
For those reasons, I support the Government. I believe that there are savings that our county councils can make, but I want to alert my hon. Friend to the situation in many schools, particularly in my constituency.

Ms Margaret Hodge: I must tell the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that education essentially is a political matter. The Government have had 16 years to show the nation, parents, employers and children that they can be trusted on education, that they can be trusted to deliver excellence and high standards for all our children.
Todays debate is an opportunity to judge the record of the Government. It is a record that shows an unforgivable betrayal of trust, a betrayal which some Conservative Members will try to hide by being economical with the truth, but a betrayal that is felt by thousands of men and women, boys and girls in communities, families and industries the length and breadth of the country.
Let us examine the record on what counts—whether enough money has been invested in the most effective way to achieve the appropriate outcomes for our children, and they are our children. Too few hon. Members who occupy the Conservative Benches trust the system for which they are responsible. Too few of them use state schools for their own children, and that indictment speaks for itself.
So what is the record? I am not thinking here of those at the top of the pile, who are likely to succeed whatever the state of our schools. My concern is for those from less-privileged backgrounds, who will be able to fulfil


their potential only if we ensure that they have the opportunity of well-resourced and rigorous schooling. It is for them in particular that we need proper investment in education. We know that schools do make a difference. All the many studies tell us that. It is therefore the overwhelming duty of Government to ensure effective policies and well-resourced schools, so that our schools can make a difference for all our children.
The Prime Minister himself accepted that it is the job of Government to tackle inequality. Nowhere is that more important than in education, yet the Prime Ministers deeds belie his words. That will never be the case for Labour in government. We intend to tackle inequality, and for that reason, education is our passion.
So let us look at the record. It is a national scandal that one in three of our seven-year-olds fails to reach the Governments set standard in handwriting. A similar number fail in spelling, and almost one in four fails to reach the grade in arithmetic. It is not good enough to say two out of three succeed. The reality is that one in three fails. Yet the Government have so under-resourced primary schools that 1 million children are being taught in classes of more than 30. Think of it. Hon. Members should imagine themselves in the place of a teacher of five and six-year-olds, with 30 children. It would take that person five hours a day to hear each child read. If one cannot hear them read, how can one expect them to reach the required standard of reading? Of course class size counts, especially at the primary level, and that is why the financial settlement is wrong.
Furthermore, we know that an effective school depends on effective leadership—a first-class head. Yet reports earlier this year showed that governing bodies were finding it increasingly difficult to recruit head teachers. In London, three in 10 headships were not filled at the first attempt in 1994. In primary schools, the number of vacancies nationwide rose from 1,509 in 1993 to 1,790 in 1994. Why? One reason is that we simply do not value and pay primary head teachers enough. Secondly, we do not invest sufficiently and effectively in head teacher training. We get what we pay for, and that is often not good enough for our children.
Again, the Government ignore the evidence. How a child performs at seven is one of the greatest influences on GCSE scores. Extensive research by the Institute of Education shows that nearly 25 per cent. of the variation in GCSE scores was accounted for by performance at age seven. The Governments failure to resource our primary schools properly betrays our children. At the age of seven, they begin to fail. By 14, the results are worse. One in three cannot master basic English, maths and science. That national failure places the country at the bottom of the league table of advanced industrial countries.
Taking the most recent set of comparable statistics, only 27 per cent.—just over one in four—of 16-year-olds secured GCSE passes in maths, English and a science in 1990–91. That compares with 66 per cent.—two out of three—in France, 62 per cent. in Germany and 50 per cent. in Japan. At A-level, the figures are 80 per cent. in Japan, 68 per cent. in Germany and 48 per cent. in France, yet just 29 per cent. in England.
What an indictment of our education service. Why is that happening? Because the Government have focused their resources on those who are most likely to succeed anyway, not on those who most need support. We should not be

surprised. They are a Government who reward the rich and punish the poor. They have done so in tax. They have done so on wages and they are doing so in education.
The Government tell the nation that they believe in choice for parents. Yet in practice their policy does not deliver that choice. By focusing on the few, not on the many, they are creating oversubscribed schools, which, in turn, become more and more selective, so that the schools are choosing the parents, rather than the parents choosing the schools. That is why appeals by parents for places in their chosen school have increased by a staggering 420 per cent. in four years. The way to increase choice is to improve quality, not just in a few centres of excellence but in all our schools for all our children.
Our schools are in crisis. The Secretary of State knows that, but she cannot admit it publicly. Nobody out there believes the Governments figures. It is a classic case of lies, damned lies and statistics. Out there in the schools, they know the truth. Parents know, governors know, teachers know. Tory councillors—admittedly a rare breed these days—know that their Government are letting us down. The Governments formula for the standard spending assessment for education is woefully inadequate. In my borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Government use 1991 figures to calculate the number of children entitled to free school meals. In fact, poverty has increased since then, mostly as a direct result of the Governments policy, so the council is losing around £1 million, which it could have spent on educating children in the classroom.
I now address another crucial point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, it was 1972 when Baroness Thatcher, then Secretary of State for Education, said in her White Paper that, within the following 10 years
nursery education should become available without charge, to those children of three or four whose parents wish them to benefit from it.
The Prime Minister, at the Conservative party conference last year, placed great emphasis on the importance of nursery education. Although his was a lesser pledge, the speech was welcomed as a step forward.
Since then, we have heard much but seen nothing. Sheila Lawlor, the architect of many of the Governments disastrous education reforms, has been pushing for vouchers because she is so hostile to publicly funded and publicly provided nursery education. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has put in his oar and has shown up yet more divisions in the Government ranks by suggesting a beauty contest between competing providers. There has been reference to a leaked letter from the Secretary of State to her Conservative colleagues. Is that yet another example of the Government breaking their promises?
The evidence that the availability of services for under-fives gives children a head start in life is overwhelming. A recent study in Wandsworth showed that children will benefit.
Sixteen years of Conservative education has failed our children. The latest round of education cuts has awakened middle England. Most governors, teachers, parents and children know that. We look forward to an early opportunity to implement our- policy in government.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I am not prepared to take any lectures from the hon. Member for


Barking (Ms Hodge). I spent 23 years teaching in comprehensive schools and in adult education and my three children attended state schools. That is characteristic of my hon. Friends and it is wrong of the hon. Lady to try to say that the reverse is the case. She has a great deal to answer for. She presided over the borough of Islington which demoralised excellent schools, such as Highbury Grove, by disgraceful and unsatisfactory appointments of heads and teachers. Such was the extent of it that the leader of her party will not use any school in that borough. What sort of tribute to the hon. Lady is that? What did she do for children? She did nothing but put them down the drain. For her to deliver such a sanctimonious speech is totally unacceptable and absolute nonsense. It convinces no one, and I am sure that it will not convince any of her electors or anyone in her party.
Labour has no ideas for education. It simply suggests that we must go back to what it attempted to give the country when it was in government. There has been no new thinking at all, and that is serious. If I were a Labour party supporter I would be terribly worried. The party has no dynamism on what is perhaps our most important subject for debate. It produces nothing except grumbles. But what is happening in education is important and valuable and it is a tribute to the Government.
There are many more nursery places than ever before and, as I said in an intervention during the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), a former leader of the Labour party came to my constituency and promised a nursery place for every child if Labour won the local election, which it did. That deceit helped the party to victory and it now resolutely refuses to implement that pledge. I was at well-attended public meetings of parents who demanded that Labour implement its promise. But it will not, and the party will pay heavily for that because parents know that they have been sold a pup and deceived.
Willow Tree primary school has a great need for expanded nursery school education, but it has not got that. Wood End infants grant-maintained school also wants to expand nursery education. It has the room and has everything in place, but the local council will not allow it. Compared with the record of its predecessor Conservative council, which put in no fewer than 400 new nursery places during its term of office at a cost of £1 million, that is a pretty dismal performance and Labour will answer for that as for so much else.
There is no point in the Labour party spokesman talking to the heads of grant-maintained schools, as he did last week, because they report to me. All but one secondary school in my constituency are grant-maintained. In some instances the parents, governors and head teachers achieved that status against bitter opposition by the Labour party. On one occasion not only the education committee chairman, Hilary Benn, but the deputy chairman of education and the education officer and deputy education officer in Ealing opposed grant-maintained status.
The parents could not have been more pressurised not to go grant-maintained. Every attempt was made to intimidate them. On my recommendation, a former leader of the Labour party, Mr. Neil Kinnock, had sent his daughter and son to that school in my constituency. I am glad that he did because they have both done well. That is a tribute to them and, in a way, to him. That school had

to work hard to become grant-maintained and it will not give up that status. It will not be cheated out of it by weasel words such as, We will try to find some way to work with grant-maintained schools. The school is determined to retain its independence and the Labour party had better understand that.
The value of the school maintaining its independence is that it does so well. The parents support the school, which is oversubscribed. Maintenance is of a standard that has not been seen before. As I have said before in the House, Northholt grant-maintained high school saved £70,000 on cleaning by cutting out the cleaning services of the local authority. I can tell the hon. Member for Barking and everybody else that that money is used to buy books, pencils, rubbers and teachers. That is the advantage of such a saving. The hon. Member for Barking shakes her head, but how does she know? I can tell her that that is the truth. That is what parents want and it is what they will have.
Labour is already giving out the jobs that will follow the next general election. It has another think coming. Labour has done that four times in a row and is doing it again, but it will have a big surprise. Opposition Members have convinced themselves as never before that they will win the election but they will not because Labour has nothing to offer people and people know that.
As we have heard, spending on education has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. Is not it a great tribute to our Government and to the people and children of this land that one child in three goes on to higher education compared with one in eight formerly? If that is not a tribute to every level of education and to dedicated work by teachers I do not know what is. It is not as if there are high failure rates. Students going into higher education achieve good degrees and there are very few drop-outs. That statistic speaks for itself.
I could say much more. Britain now spends more on education than on defence. For many years Labour said that we had our values wrong because we spent more on defence than on education. It did not care about the fact that there could be no education if the land was not defended and was overrun or demoralised. Labour Members made much of that moral argument, as they called it. Now that the balance is so greatly changed it is right to draw attention to it. It is right that the balance should be in favour of education because that is where the future of the country lies. At £28 billion a year, our spending on education is high and compares with that of any other country.
I must mention my constituency. In Ealing the local council has £17 million in reserve so there is no excuse for selling schools short. I question the figures that Labour puts about. A few days ago I went into a primary school and the chairman of the governors, who is a Labour party supporter and a former councillor, said to me, Harry, there will be a shortfall of £45,000 on the school budget. That will mean two teachers going and I shall make sure that the parents know that it is your Government who have done it. I said, What is the pay budget? What is the cost of teachers this year? The head teacher got the figures out. The cost was £302,000 for the year. I said that the award was 2.7 per cent., and that that did not tome to £45,000. We do not always hear the right and honest figure. Every time a figure is thrown around, we should quote the true figure, question the first figure, and find out whether it is right or wrong and what the true facts are. We shall find that, for political purposes, there is quite a lot of misrepresentation of figures.
In my professional life in schools, I always stood for high standards in work, attendance and behaviour. Over many years, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and I worked together to that end. High standards of work, attendance and behaviour are the policies of the Conservative party and the Government. With such policies, we stand by children in the way that we must for their future achievement.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: This years education budgets have left teachers, parents and governors bewildered and angry. They are even more perplexed by the attempt of the Secretary of State for Education to pretend that that is somehow the fault of local education authorities, but parents are not so easily fooled. They know who to blame and why that has happened.
Governors and parents are fully aware that the Government are cutting public expenditure so that they can make Budget tax cuts next year in time for a feel-good factor before the general election. People are angry that their children are being made to suffer for cheap political expediency. On this occasion, the Secretary of State and her friends in the Cabinet will find that they have made the worst mistake of their political lives.
Let us consider what has happened in the Secretary of States own county of Norfolk. She says that spending on schools there has increased, but the standard spending assessment per secondary school pupil in Norfolk is £100 less than it was in 1992–93. I wonder if she thinks that she can disguise that as an increase in spending. The Norfolk education budget has had a cut of £3.3 million. The local authority has chosen to cut discretionary awards, community education, adult education and school meals.
What about the next-door county of Cambridgeshire, in which the Prime Minister and I have our constituencies? In Cambridgeshire, the SSA per secondary school pupil is £64 less than it was in 1992–93. It is difficult to disguise that as an increase in spending. The education budget is being cut by £4 million in Cambridgeshire. Even that is not as bad as was originally feared, because the county has taken £7 million out of county budget reserves, which were put aside for a rainy day. It is a rainy day today, and the trouble is that, if it continues to rain next year and the year after, nothing will be left in the reserves to bail out the countys budget—and schools are looking to make a £10 million cut in 1996–97.
The education committee in Cambridgeshire has had to consider cuts in a number of sectors. They have included the community education service, in which Cambridgeshire once had a proud record, charging for school transport, and changing arrangements for admission for the rising fives. Presumably, that has resulted from pressure from Conservative Members of Parliament in the county, who have had their statutory letter from the Secretary of State urging that schooling for under-fives should be one of the sectors to be cut.
The Secretary of State has said that councils are capable of putting more money into education if they choose to do so, but that they do not choose to do so. In Cambridgeshire, we have always spent well above the SSA on education. Even when the county council inherited the budget from Conservative control in 1993–94, spending on education was 4.1 per cent. above the SSA. Education spending in 1994–95 was 6.1 per cent. above the SSA and it is predicted

that in 1995–96 it will be 6.6 per cent. above SSA. That is not without pain. Education spending increases mean cuts elsewhere. The county council has already had to make some difficult and painful decisions.
Let us consider another of the Secretary of States statements. She said:
Too much money is kept back by the Education Department for central costs. A recent Audit Commission report showed that local authorities could make efficiency savings of £500 million.
In Cambridgeshire, this years spending on administration per pupil is £34.55. The county average is £43.47, so Cambridgeshire is spending 20 per cent. less on administration than the county average.
The other extraordinary statement made by the Prime Minister was that there are two administrators for every three teachers. In Cambridgeshire, there are 10 teachers for every administrator. If we take cleaners and caretakers out of the definition of an administrator, the ratio of teachers to administrators is more than 20 to one. I wonder where the Prime Minister obtained those extraordinary figures. Is he still sticking by them? They sound as if they came out of some random number generator.
What do parents and governors think? I have had more than 400 letters about education service cuts and it is difficult to find anyone who believes that the county council is to blame. All of them know that the Government are imposing the cuts. I am surprised not to see some of the right hon. and hon. Members who represent Cambridgeshire constituencies in the Chamber. At least one of them has been outspoken about the cuts, particularly when speaking to my local newspaper, the Cambridge Evening News. I wonder why he is not here tonight to express some of those views so that Ministers with responsibility for education can hear them.
In my brief visit on Monday to a special school, the Rees Thomas school for children with severe learning difficulties, I saw some excellent work by dedicated staff, some worrying deterioration in playground furniture—which is due to be condemned by health and safety officials next year—and overcrowding that severely restricts education opportunities for those children. Two of the governors invited me to visit the school so that I could see for myself the difficulties that it is working under even before further cuts are imposed.
A letter on behalf of one of the secondary schools in my constituency states that staffing will be cut from 32.7 to 30.4. It says that that will mean that some classes will increase from 24 to 30 pupils. One of the parents from that school wrote to me:
Good education is not cheap. But the results of an inadequate education system are too costly to contemplate.
Another person writes that she would rather education standards were maintained than have one or two pennies off her income tax. I know that that view is widely shared in my constituency.
Another school that wrote to me is one of the few ecumenical schools in my part of the world. I remember that the school was threatened with closure in the mid-1980s. Since then, it has made great efforts. Its standards are now excellent and it has a strong parental following. One of the reasons why people are able and choose to send their children there is that the county council promised that it would provide children with free transport to that school. That promise has had to


be broken. The county council is having to impose a charge of £25 per term for each pupil travelling to that school. The schools very existence depends on pupils travelling from a distance. I fear that the only children who will be able to attend that school in future will be those whose family have money or who live nearby.
I finish by quoting from a letter that I received from Cambridge and district chamber of commerce and industry. It points out that the southern part of the county may lose 75 teaching posts and states that industry and commerce depend on a well-trained work force and are afraid that it will not he possible to maintain proper standards because of the freezing of money spent on education and because of the failure to fund the teachers pay increase. Those people would not complain about education cuts if they did not believe that education in the county was in crisis. I urge Ministers to listen carefully to what is being said by such people because we are talking about the future of our nation and of our country.

8 pm

Mr. Bob Dunn: The Labour motion refers to
the threat to standards, opportunity and achievement,
yet nothing has been said or done by the Labour party in the House or in the country to contribute ideas that would lead to the raising of standards, an increase in opportunities and the full recognition of achievement. Nor do I believe that Labour supporters in control of local authorities in areas such as Kent—and Kent in particular—have any other agenda than the policies of the 1960s.
This education debate, like so many others, shows the state of intellectual honesty in the Labour party today. Principles have been hidden and commitments fudged because nothing must be said or done unless it is to the benefit of the Labour party. Wheeling, dealing, dodging and downright deceit have always been the posture of the Liberal Democrats, but it is only in the past two years that we have begun to realise that they are also the stance of the Labour party. It is very sad that a once great party should descend to the level of the Liberal Democrats in the way that it chooses not to present its policies as it should. The Labour party is revealing not its intellectual honesty but its intellectual dishonesty.
A few days ago, the Leader of the Opposition said, I have a passion for education, for order, for law, for cold water and for apple pie. The trouble is that no one knows precisely what that means. Of course, it is evidence of the soundbite mania of the spin doctors who have now been Mandelised into the Labour party, that the Leader of the Opposition is having to say that he has a passion for this and for that—it does not matter for what, as long as it wins votes. Labour is being told to forget its principles; winning is all that matters. There is no longer any intellectual honesty in the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has shown great interest in the county of Kent. I welcome that because whenever left wingers from Liverpool come to Kent our majorities shoot up even higher than they were. However, the hon. Gentleman has taken an interest, and we are having a real debate.
Like his colleagues, the hon. Gentleman will have to learn that to find the true voice of the Labour party in Kent one needs to speak to those who control the county council, who wish to abolish grammar schools, take back grant-maintained status from schools, close the city technology college and do away with all that we have done. That is the true voice of the Stalinist Labour party, as I have known it all my life.
Tonight we need from the hon. Member for Walton some account of the row taking place between his team and the Leader of the Opposition. I would love to know what is happening because, clearly, there is no great joy or happiness but, rather, a darkness, between them. Indeed, we know that that is the case elsewhere. There is a darkness between the Leader of the Opposition and his spokespersons in the health team and, of course, there is absolute, total blackness between the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader. Perhaps we can look forward to a bit of excitement from the Labour spokesman tonight. I say, Give us the beef. Tell us the truth about what is happening in the Labour party, and let us see whether John Humphrys uses it on the Today programme tomorrow.
The House knows that I have been a strong advocate for schools in my constituency for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament. There are nine grant-maintained schools in Dartford—the Dartford grammar school for boys; the Dartford grammar schools for girls; the Wilmington grammar school for boys; the grammar school for girls, Wilmington; the Horton Kirby primary school; the Sutton-at-Hone primary school; Wilmington primary school; the Holy Trinity Church of England primary school; and Our Lady Roman Catholic school in Hartley.
All of those schools have taken advantage of the opportunity to break free from the bureaucracy of local authorities. We also have a city technology college in Dartford, so we have a real choice which the Labour party would destroy. There are 60,000 children educated in grant-maintained schools in the county of Kent. I warn those 60,000 children and their 60,000 families—many hundreds of thousands of voters—to watch out because Labour will destroy their schools.
We have to read the press to find out what Labour party policy is, inasmuch as the Labour party knows what it is or inasmuch as its spokespersons are allowed to reveal it. On 19 March, Andrew Grice wrote an article in The Sunday Times with the headline, Labour Pledge to ballot parents on handing back of opt-out schools. The small print states:
Schools that vote against returning to town hall control, however, will not be permitted to operate in isolation from their community; some governors would be appointed by the local authority.
In other words, a school can have democracy—it can stay in local authority control or vote to opt out—but, if it does not vote to come back in, Labour will put a majority of governors on the governing body to ensure that it does.
That is the lesson of Liverpool and inner London in the 1970s and 1980s. Labour will appoint a majority of governors on the governing body and intimidate the head, the teachers and the parents and force the school back into LEA control because that is Labours wish. Labour wants nothing but the comprehensive system. That is what Labour is about.
It is a strange phenomenon but I feel that, at long last, we are having a dialogue—at least I am having one with myself—on what the Labour party believes. I like the hon. Member for Walton, who, is a nice chap. I am sure that he is—anyone who takes on the Militants in Liverpool cannot be wholly bad.
I want Labours policy spelt out. It is an act of gross dishonesty not to reveal the truth. Under Labour, parents would see their schools going back into LEA control. They have to be told by the Conservatives what Labour will do. Labour would bring in the thought police and get them on the governing bodies of schools and, by hook or by crook, by intimidation, threat and sheer pressure from the organised vested interests in our communities, bring schools back into local authority control. That would be a monstrous thing to do.
I expect the hon. Member for Waltons winding-up speech to be brief so I hope that he will explain to me in writing something that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said today. He said that Kent had spent £9 million on a nursery voucher experiment. I think that the hon. Member for Walton is nodding, or else he has a nervous tick. In any event, he is indicating that I am right.
I have checked with the county council. There was an experiment that was financed and surveyed but not put in place. Had the county council put it in place in Ashford, the cost would have been £1.2 million but, as it was not put in place, the cost was not £9 million, nor was it £1.2 million. May we have an apology today, or later in writing?
I believe that the Government are going to make great strides with this policy. People like it and want it and do not want it taken away. If the Labour party wishes to protect its own interests, it should start to side with grant-maintained schools, the parents and governors. I hope that, in time, the Conservative party will decide that all schools should be grant-maintained. Let us have done with the dead hand of local authorities and the dead hand of Stalinism that exists in Kent and Liverpool.
I hope that the hon. Member for Walton will explain to the House in words of one syllable, so that even in Liverpool they can understand what he is saying, why Liverpool has domestic rates arrears of £23 million, community charge arrears of £68 million and council tax arrears of £10.7 million. That is the missing money; that is where the problem lies. It lies with the Labour party and with those in local government who support it and we must have none of it.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: It is a great pleasure to follow the voice of—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)—a once great party, with its £15 million overdraft, its disappearing membership and its universally reviled policies. It is very nice to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about Stalinists in Kent—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And Liverpool.

Mr. Pickthall: No, he did not mention Liverpool.
The Government have a simple purpose behind the cuts that they are inflicting on education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) explained. Our school and college students are to pay for the core of

the Governments next election campaign: income tax cuts. All their efforts are now bent on shifting the blame to local education authorities. They will use every statistical lie and every myth that they conjure to that end. Their efforts are not succeeding and their sheer desperation has been indicated by the Secretary of States decision to encourage her Back Benchers to give the black spot to nursery spending. Tory Back Benchers seem wisely to avoid being seen doing that. Indeed, they are usually at the front of the queue, demanding more nursery provision from their LEAs for their constituents; and who can blame them.
The basic figures which explain what is happening are clear enough. I shall, of course, use Lancashire as my example. Lancashires education standard spending assessment for next year is £484 million—£37.6 million less than it spent last year. Lancashires SSA per secondary pupil is £133 less than it was in 1992–93.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surplus places.

Mr. Pickthall: I shall come to surplus places. Such reductions cannot be sustained without pain and disruption and, probably, without sackings.
Lancashire is one of the four biggest shires in the country in terms of population, but it is the only one of those four which does not benefit from the area cost adjustment. For example, in Essex, the SSA per secondary pupil is £2,755, plus a few pence. In Lancashire, the SSA per secondary pupil is £2,610. So a secondary pupil in Essex is deemed to be worth £145 more than a pupil in Lancashire.
Within that comparison, weighting for free school meals in Essex is £42.62, while in Lancashire it is £45.67. Weighting for the additional educational needs index in Essex is £353.13 and in Lancashire it is £428.04. But for the ACA, Lancashire would have an SSA per secondary pupil £75 higher than Essex. Similar comparisons can be made with the primary figures and between Lancashire and Kent and Lancashire and Hampshire, the other two counties of similar proportions.
It has always been recognised by all hon. Members that Londons needs are special and that the ACA should account for them, but it is unacceptable to those outside the south-east that the counties surrounding the capital should benefit equally from that adjustment. Twelve of the 13 counties with the highest SSA per pupil benefit from the area cost adjustment. In no way do I suggest that Kent, Essex and Hampshire should have their funding cut, but how on earth can counties outside the south-east provide the same service to pupils and achieve the same results in league tables, across the board, with such resource differentials? I am astonished that more Conservatives who represent constituencies in the midlands, the north of England and the far west are not up in arms regularly about it.
The result for Lancashire of all the proposals is a 5.5 per cent. cut in school budgets. The blow falls especially heavily on those schools with a settled and stable work force where teachers are at the top of their scales. Visiting St. Thomas the Martyr primary school in Up Holland in my constituency last week, a first-class school with an excellent reputation, I encountered just such a school. It will have to lose the equivalent of 1.5 staff. A member of the staff told me bitterly:
We are an expensive staff so we have to be clobbered.


It seems that this time the Government cannot pass off the viciousness of their cuts by picking on a handful of LEAs that they most dislike to pour on them their vilification. Almost all local authorities and their citizens are up in arms. Even among those lobbying the House on Tuesday last week, I came across a large contingent from Buckinghamshire, the last of the Tory shires.
Moreover, parents and governors know where the blame lies. I have had hundreds of letters, as I assume have all hon. Members, but not one of them blames a local education authority. Some of them, I have to say, blame me because I have not stopped the Government. They think that I can do that. Indeed, the letters have included all sorts of suggestions, from talking nicely to the Prime Minister, who will obviously understand and change his mind, to knee-capping various members of the Cabinet. Gently, I have to tell the parents and governors that neither method is likely to work.
Many desperate myths are being perpetrated to justify what the Government are doing. In some parts of Lancashire, the Tories are encouraging schools and governors to go for grant-maintained status so that they can secure additional funding to get round the cuts. That is an absolute fabrication. Grant-maintained status can do nothing for those schools about the cuts that the Government are now instituting, however legitimate the discussions. The funding formula will still apply.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickthall: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member, who has flitted in and out of the debate like Marleys ghost and expects to intervene all the time.
We are told that the Government have increased spending on Lancashire education by 1.4 per cent., but they have also told Lancashire that it cannot increase spending by more than 0.5 per cent. The education share of that increase is £2.7 million, but an increase of more than £30 million is needed to meet existing commitments—for a standstill budget. That £2.7 million would not even cover the increased number of pupils coming on stream in 1995–96: an increase of 1.5 per cent.
The Governments extra funding of 1.4 per cent., in itself only a tiny part of what is needed, must be put alongside the 0.5 per cent. limit on spending. So, 1.1 per cent. may be used only to reduce the increase in the council tax; it cannot be used for schools. It has been said that Lancashire has reserves to deal with the problems. Some absurd figures have been put forward by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). I notice that she did not refer to them today so she has probably now read the proper material. From £33 million in schools reserves, much is being spent now and most is committed to development projects.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickthall: No I shall not give way, I have only about 30 seconds left. The LEA—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickthall: No. The LEA has no control over those resources. Local management of schools encourages independent control by governors over those funds.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I hope that it is a point of order for the Chair.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is a point of order. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) is deliberately misleading the House. I am not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a not a point of order and the hon. Lady, with all her experience, well knows it.

Mr. Pickthall: The county balance at the moment stands—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must withdraw the words deliberately misleading the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I withdraw the word deliberately, but I shall say that the hon. Gentleman is unintentionally and entirely misinforming the House.

Mr. Pickthall: The hon. Lady knows all about being misinformed, I am sure. The county balance stands at £9 million—the minimum that the county treasury will allow as an appropriate level, having regard to the councils legal duty to set a balanced budget.
Stories are also being put around about the amount being spent on central services. I do not have any time to go through all the figures—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Pickthall: Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster would like to take them up with me in detail, at some other time.
Central administration costs in Lancashire stand at 3 per cent.—right at the bottom section of the county league table. And if we look properly at how the funding is divided between teachers and administrators, we see that the ratio of staff providing direct services to schools and teachers is 1:74.7, not 1:17, as the hon. Member for Lancaster said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to be called in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was beginning to wonder whether there was something wrong with the annunciator, because there are only three Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber for what we are told is such an important debate. [HoN. MEMBERS: Where are they?] Ah, here comes another one—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
The Government have been radical in their education policy, and I greatly welcome the diversity that has been introduced into the state education system. We have introduced the national curriculum, grant-maintained schools and local management of schools. The Labour party bitterly opposed each of those policies. Our radical approach to education is wholly to our credit. All that the Labour party has ever been is the mouthpiece of the National Union of Teachers and the education establishment, and Labour Members prove that time and time again.
Yesterday I asked the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), a question about spending in Derbyshire schools in 1994–95


prices. In 1978–79—I do not think that we were responsible for that budget—spending in primary schools was £1,064 per head; in 1993–94 it was £1,632 per head. That shows our true commitment to education, because over a long period there has been a substantial and consistent increase. That is most important.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister, however, that we have to find a way of getting the figures over to the public and explaining to them what is being spent on the education budget. The trouble is that the explanations are so confusing, what with standard spending assessments, general schools budgets, potential schools budgets and aggregated schools budgets. How on earth is anybody supposed to get to the bottom of what is going on in school funding with all those variations?
Derbyshire county council has excelled itself in efficiency. One would not often hear me praise that authority. But last week I asked the Secretary of State a question in which I pointed out that there were about 17,000 surplus places in Derbyshire. Unfortunately, I was wrong; there are more than 20,000. However, within 12 hours of my saying that the chairman of the education committee put out a press release showing where all the surplus places were in west Derbyshire. He did not cover the rest of the county, just west Derbyshire. I wrote back to him saying that his response had been very good and efficient, and that perhaps he could let me have the figures for the whole county within the next 48 hours. We are now 28 hours on, and I am still counting.
The facts about overall spending levels are important. At the end of the day it is difficult to work out the true facts and statistics. Derbyshire county council consistently talks about standard spending assessments and says that it would like the same SSA as Surrey. But when I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), he told me that Derbyshires SSA per head of population was £549, whereas in Surrey the figure is £524. If my county council really wants the same SSA as Surrey, it is calling for a reduction. We should judge the whole area of local authority spending rather than specific individual figures.
I note that these days Labour Front-Bench spokesmen pay great attention to the Library, regarding its staff as independent statisticians who will give us the true figures. Well, the Library has done some research for me, and yesterday we were told that in 1994–95 Derbyshire local education authority spent £720 per pupil in addition to the sums delegated to each school. That figure compares with £570 in Nottinghamshire and £550 in Staffordshire. In other words, Derbyshire spends an extra £150. If that money were going directly into schools, we would be talking not about reductions but about substantial increases.
Perhaps it is time that we thought about having a national funding formula, designated by the Government, for all schoolchildren throughout the country. As things are the Government get all the blame, but we do not have the responsibility. So let us take the responsibility and cut out the local education authorities. I believe that there is much inefficiency in LEAs, and it is difficult to get to the bottom of their budgets.
I also asked a parliamentary question about subsidies for school meals in Derbyshire. Today I received an answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State telling me that the income for Derbyshires school catering service was £9,051 million whereas expenditure on the service amounts to £22,959 million. There is

therefore a subsidy, or a discrepancy—I do not know what the Labour party likes to call it—of £13,900 million on school meals. If the county wishes to pay such a subsidy, that is a policy decision that it is entitled to take. But the fact is that one cannot spend money in two places. The county cannot subsidise school meals and spend a huge amount on central administration, and then complain that it has not the money to delegate to schools. That is an important point, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to deal with some of those issues. I was encouraged by a story that I read on the front page of The Times Educational Supplement at the weekend suggesting that the Government might be considering a national funding formula. I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment on speculation in the papers, but may I tell him that if the Government are considering such a policy I should wholeheartedly endorse it? The sooner it is adopted the better.
I also have something to say about grant-maintained schools. I have a letter here from Michael Collier, the chief executive of the Funding Agency for Schools, and I am concerned about the way in which GM schools are notified of their budgets. The education budget is announced by the Chancellor in November, and local authorities hear about their budgets from the Secretary of State shortly after that.
However, in the letter Mr. Collier writes:
It is anticipated that the Final Annual Maintenance Grant will be issued in early May.
That is six weeks into the new financial year. I do not think that it is a fair way to treat large secondary schools with big budgets, or indeed primary schools, if they do not find out what their final budgets are to be until the year has started. That is an important problem which needs to be dealt with.
There is no question in my mind but that local authorities could find the money for this years pay increases. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that although one can get away with a pay freeze for one or two years, it is not possible to do so beyond that point. I hope that when discussions take place on next years spending round that thought will be at the forefront.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said that he would like every school to become grant-maintained. I should like every school not only to become grant-maintained but to know, by means of a national funding formula, what its budget will be. At the moment there are too many dark holes through which money can be filtered away by local education authorities, and even some grant-maintained schools do not get the right amounts of money. I believe that we as a party and as a Government have a good reputation in education. We have changed the whole education system by diversifying and providing choice in the state system, and that is something to which the Labour party is totally opposed. It wants to bring everyone down to the same level, but we want to allow people to excel in state education—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is convenient for me to follow the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who represents a neighbouring constituency to mine, as I can refer to some of his arguments.
One argument that the hon. Gentleman used—it has also been used by the Prime Minister and by other Conservative Members—was to compare the level of expenditure on education in 1978–79 with the current level of expenditure. That is a considerable period, and an analysis of what has happened within education cannot just be made with such a broad-brush approach. Some consideration must be given to what has happened in the past five years—particularly in Derbyshire—as that would show a different pattern.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire stressed various issues such as surplus places. One of his solutions to the current crisis in Derbyshire is school closures and amalgamations, which he believes would solve a great problem within the vast rural areas of west Derbyshire. The hon. Gentleman also wishes to cut out the role of the local education authority. Unfortunately, the role of the LEA has just about been cut out altogether by the present financial arrangements. Because of the Governments policy, LEAs have virtually no options as to the policies that they can adopt. I assume that that call by the hon. Gentleman is a reflection of his lack of success in trying to get rid of Derbyshire county council and follows the arguments about boundary changes that he has been notably unsuccessful in pursuing.
Another matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman was price increases for school meals, but I suspect that he really means cutting out the school meals provision. Following assault upon assault by the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members from the county, Derbyshire increased the price of school meals. Following that decision, the take-up of school meals was not what it had been. To argue that school meals should not be a part of education provision seems to me to be entirely inadequate, so we can dismiss the arguments of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire.
Before the hon. Gentleman incensed me, I had initially planned to apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber for the entire debate. This was because of the subject matter that we are discussing today. There has been a mass lobby from Derbyshire at the House of Commons, which has included teachers, pupils, parents and governors.

The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): They should have been in school.

Mr. Barnes: Those people are in school on many occasions. They are concerned about the major problems and they are here to represent their views. They have important points to make to which the Minister—instead of lecturing them—should listen. Many petitions and letters were presented to me concerning north-east Derbyshire, and other activities took place. The number who came here today—a limited number compared with the numbers who are incensed by what is taking place—presented their petitions, which will see the light of day in the House quite soon.
The Governments policy is to divide and rule, and they hope that a squabble will take place in areas such as Derbyshire about who gets what. Our policy is to unite and fight, and that is seen as important by some angry teachers, pupils, parents and governors. Thanks to Government policy, those governors have begun to

understand the financing arrangements in schools. Local management of schools has turned governors and head teachers into accountants so that those in charge are no longer bemused by some of the arrangements, and they have begun to understand the problems.
In 1988, I asked the then Prime Minister—now Lady Thatcher—to compliment Derbyshire county council on its teacher-pupil ratio. Derbyshire had the best ratio in special education and in secondary education, and in primary education it was second to Nottinghamshire. Since then, we have had cuts in real terms in the budgets of £152 million. Some £54 million of that has been in education, with £28 million being cut this year.
Those figures tie in with the development of changes in the structure of local government finance following the legislation which introduced the poll tax. Although the poll tax has changed into the council tax, the structure of the business rate and other arrangements which were determined then and the technique for the standard spending assessment—which gets bashed about in this House considerably and correctly—came within that area. Compared with Hertfordshire, Derbyshire is £90 million behind the level it had at that time; its SSA initially was very similar to that of Hertfordshire.
When addressing the governors at Holmgate school in Clay Cross, I attempted to explain the methodology of the SSA. One teacher said that he never knew that there was a formula for the SSA, and that he assumed that things were so bad in Derbyshire that the figures were just plucked out of the air. There has to be a formula as far as the law is concerned, but it is a fiddled formula.
The education spend this year is down in real terms, and the maldistribution which occurs within that is more serious. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire may have picked up some points about that maldistribution, as he has criticised the area cost adjustment in the House in the past.
Yesterday, I asked the current Prime Minister about the situation, but I could no longer ask him to compliment Derbyshire on its student-teacher ratio. I had to ask him how he could expect teachers not to be sacked and classes not to be increased in size following the cuts. I asked whether he agreed that education generally could be destroyed because the very fabric of our schools is facing problems. There was no answer. He simply said what the hon. Member for West Derbyshire said in his speech, which was that we should compare 1978–79 expenditure with current expenditure. The Tories think that that is the answer to every problem in the universe and that we need think about nothing else. But there are many other things to think about.
Unfortunately, my time has nearly run out. In the remaining minutes, I should like to mention a letter from the head of governors at Grassmoor primary school, in which he asked if the Secretary of State for Education would come to Grassmoor school and let the governors, parents and others explain their case—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentlemans time is up.

Mr. David Faber: I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and other hon. Members will forgive me if I do not necessarily follow them down the same route. I would dearly love to have time


to debate choice, rising standards and the grant-maintained status system—I have listened with great interest to speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin)—but, like other hon. Members, I shall concentrate specifically on issues that affect my county of Wiltshire.
I listened carefully to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who, sadly, is no longer in his place. He commented at length on the scare stories and problems that had arisen in his constituency and in Devon as a whole as a result of activities by Liberal Democrats locally. I readily acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) throughout this debate, but it is instructive that, although massive petitions have been organised by Liberal Democrats in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and throughout the west country, hon. Members who represent those counties have been ignominious by their absence tonight.

Mr. Sebastian Coe: They cannot all be in Bosnia.

Mr. Faber: As my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) says, they cannot all be in Bosnia at the same time.
When the funding settlement was first announced in Wiltshire, we faced no problems. Indeed, an opposition spokesman on Wiltshire county council said that there were no scare stories or talk of sacking teachers in Wiltshire, and that we faced no problems. Yet on 15 February this year, in an extraordinary letter which the chief education officer was mandated to send to all chairmen of governors by the Labour and Liberal Democrat ruling group on the council, he urged all chairmen of governors to write to the Chancellor asking for the teachers pay increase to be funded in full.

Mr. Blunkett: Quite right.

Mr. Faber: The hon. Gentleman says, Quite right. I shall explain how wrong and misguided he is.
Sadly, many governors have been hoodwinked and scared by the LEA into writing that letter. They have been led to believe that education funding in Wiltshire is not sufficient, whereas nothing could be further from the case. The chief education officer acknowledges in his letter:
The budgetary prospects in Wiltshire are better than in many other LEAs, due to the Councils readiness to put front-line services first. The budget will meet the costs of increased numbers.
It is certainly true that the budget and the grant handed down by central Government will meet the increased numbers of pupils in schools but, sadly, it has nothing to do with the local councils good housekeeping.
Pupil numbers in Wiltshire have risen more quickly than nationally. The upshot is that Wiltshire pupils now make up a larger proportion of the national pupil total, so Wiltshire gets a larger share of national funding. As a result, the education SSA for 1995–96 in Wiltshire will be £188.56 million, a 2.7 per cent. increase, against a national average of just 1.2 per cent., so the Government have fully funded the rise in pupil numbers in Wiltshire.
The letter goes on to tackle the problem of teachers pay and to explain the LEAs position. Of the 2.7 per cent. increase agreed nationally, it says that the budget

can cope with funding 2 per cent. and asks schools to find the remaining 0.7 per cent. Even on that, it is not strictly accurate.
At primary level, all but 0.35 per cent. of the settlement has been funded, yet some primary school governors are still writing to me in the expectation that they will be 0.7 per cent. short. That shortfall represents just 0.2 per cent. of the total primary school budget in Wiltshire, a global figure of just £150,000, which the county council has the nerve to say it cannot find. At secondary level, 0.7 per cent. is not fully funded by the county council. That represents 0.45 per cent. of the total budget.
My hon. Friends who represent Wiltshire and I were not surprised that county councillors initial reaction was to say, without daring to blush, that that was all they could fund and that, if teachers were to be sacked, it was the Governments fault. I put it on the record that the Conservative group on the council voted against sending that letter to the chairmen of governors.
Let us examine a little more closely the expenditure of the local education authority and of Wiltshire county council as a whole—expenditure which the LEA has conveniently ignored or glossed over. I am afraid to say that Wiltshire has done all too little to reduce central administration costs.
Why is it that, in neighbouring Dorset and nearby Hampshire, 4.5 per cent. of the total school budget is spent on administration? I understand that, in Lancashire—the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) has now left the Chamber—it is just 1.7 per cent., yet Wiltshire still spends 5.2 per cent. of its total budget on administration. That may sound a small percentage difference, but it is a huge sum when taken out of an approved budget of £201 million.
Let us look, too, at how successful Wiltshire is at delegating its budget to schools under LMS. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire mentioned the potential schools budget, a figure that represents the LEAs total planned expenditure in respect of schools operating under local management, less the authoritys planned central expenditure on items that are statutorily excluded.
In 1994–95, Wiltshire, like other counties, excluded the normal sums for capital expenditure for school transport, school meals and other items. Yet last year, Wiltshire delegated less of its potential schools budget to schools than it had the year before. In 1993–94, Wiltshire held back 12.8 per cent. of its budget for its own use, yet in 1994–95, that figure rose to 14 per cent., an unexplained increase of 1.2 per cent. That means that, across the board, schools in the county had 1.2 per cent. less to spend last year than they had the year before.
I am sorry to say that those figures make Wiltshire one of the worst performing counties in the country when it comes to delegating its budget to schools. It is often said that the success of LMS has made opting out unnecessary. Those figures show just how much council schools are at the mercy of local politicians, who, as in the case of Wiltshire, have chosen to put the delegation process into reverse. Grant-maintained status gives the schools control over their budget as of right, not out of grace and favour and at the whim of local councilors.
Wiltshire county council has other so-called crucial spending plans in its budget this year. It has decided to continue with the employment of an environmental


co-ordinator, plus support staff, and a crime co-ordinator, plus his support staff. Most outrageous of all, it continues to support neighbouring Somerset county councils legal quest to ban hunting on council land. Despite the legal decision of the Court of Appeal just two weeks ago, Wiltshire continues to fund Somersets legal campaign. Just yesterday, it voted through an extra £13,500 to take on a survey to be run by the agricultural college at Cirencester to prove that hunting damages the environment.
Now is not the time to debate the merits or otherwise of hunting, and I have no interest in doing so. But surely childrens education comes first. Those figures must rise from the £50,000 that has already been spent towards £100,000. I remind hon. Members that, just a few moments ago, I pointed out that the shortfall in funding the teachers pay rise in primary education in Wiltshire is just £150,000, yet it seems to be more important to those councillors to spend money on banning hunting in neighbouring Somerset—not even in their own county—than on providing teachers in Wiltshires primary schools.
Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors on Wiltshire county council are shamelessly playing party politics with childrens education. They have jumped on a national bandwagon of protest when no such bandwagon need exist in Wiltshire, because no such problems exist. Local opposition spokesmen on the council admitted as much when the grant settlement was first announced.
The letter from the chief education officer to the chairmen of governors in schools is a shameful attempt to scare them and bully the Government. I pay tribute to the hundreds of governors in Wiltshire who give of their time so generously, and to the thousands of teachers who do such invaluable work in our schools. I appeal to them not to be taken in by what has been said by the local politicians. I appeal to them to ask those local politicians searching questions along the lines that I have tried to lay out today.
My message to Wiltshire county council would be to find the money, fund the pay increase in full and put childrens education at the top of its agenda, and not relegate it below some of its little pet projects.

Mr. Stephen Byers: I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. For the information of the Minister, some pupils from my constituency were in Westminster today—pupils from the Sacred Heart primary school in Wideopen.

Mr. Forth: Why were they not at school?

Mr. Byers: The Minister will be glad to hear that they were here on an educational visit, and I hope that Hansard will note that the Minister objects to the fact that they were here. For the Ministers information, the guide who took them round commended them on their knowledge of history. Like many other hon. Members whose constituents have had school trips here, I am sure that it is a valuable learning exercise.
It is deeply disappointing that the Minister does not appear to agree that visits by schoolchildren are to their benefit. I believe they are, and it is deeply disappointing that the Minister who sits there on the Government Bench shakes his head, disapproving of that visit. I shall ensure

that those schoolchildren and their parents are made fully aware of the way in which that Conservative Minister says that they are too young to benefit from such a visit.
The key is that all political parties should broadly agree that education is about raising standards and improving quality. I think that all hon. Members will agree that we must seek to do that. We disagree, because the Government do it on the basis of dogma and the introduction of market forces because they believe that that is the politically correct thing to do, while we, on the Opposition side of the Chamber, believe that the market has no part to play in education provision.
We believe that the market is about profit and loss, gainers and losers. It is our opinion that any philosophy of education based on the opinion that some of our children must be losers so that others can be gainers is unacceptable. We need an education service that meets the needs and demands of all our children.
We arranged the debate today—

Mr. Forth: We?

Mr. Byers: As the Opposition, we have used one of our supply days.
We arranged the debate because it is our opinion that the policies being pursued by the Government have failed, and will continue to fail, the schoolchildren of our country.
We need only read the official reports from the Office of Standards in Education to realise—those reports show it clearly—that about one third of our schoolchildren are being failed by the system. They receive a substandard education. That is unacceptable. We need policies that will ensure that that 33 per cent. of schoolchildren receive the education they need and deserve.
The Government amendment talks about giving parents more choice. I remind the Minister of the comments he made in Committee during the passage of the Education Act 1993, when he accepted, and said very clearly, that the Government were not offering choice to parents. Those were the Ministers words—that the Government could not offer choice to parents. All they could do was allow parents to express a preference. That is all the Government are doing—allowing a preference to be expressed. Parents cannot choose the school to which they will send their children—they can only express a preference.
However, the Minister, the Government and the Conservative party, by talking about choice, have raised parental expectations. It should be no surprise that, in the past three years alone, the number of parents appealing against not obtaining a place at the school of their choice for their child has more than doubled. Those are the Governments own figures.
Spending is at the heart of the debate. The settlement for schools takes no account of the extra 116,000 pupils who will be in the school system from September 1995. It takes no account of the additional financial burdens of the introduction of the new code of practice for those children with special educational needs, and no account of the additional demands of-the national curriculum. The Government introduce all those policies, but choose to ignore them when allocating resources.
The way in which the Government have dealt with this years teachers pay award has highlighted, not just for politicians but for parents and governors, the way in


which the Government are treating the funding of our education system. The current Secretary of State for Education has failed to deliver for our children, their parents and school governors.
The last time there was difficulty in funding a settlement for teachers, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), rustled up an extra £67 million from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help fund the teachers pay settlement. He did what he could for the education service, as recently as three years ago. The present Secretary of State has failed.
What about the standard spending assessments? We heard from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) about the problems being caused to the education budget in Derbyshire. The hon. Gentleman should have found out what Derbyshire is spending on education this year and compared it with the standard spending assessment given next year for education in Derbyshire. If he had compared the two figures—as he is a Conservative Member, I can understand why he did not do so—he would have discovered that this year Derbyshire is spending £333 million on education, but next year it has a standard spending assessment for education of £303 million. There is a gap of £30 million.
There is a warning here. Conservative Members speak about a national funding system for education. If we had that, based on the criteria of the Government, £30 million would be cut from Derbyshires education budget. Nationally, it would mean a cut of £486 million.
We are aware that standards are under attack throughout the system. In our primary schools, more than 1 million children—one in four—are in classes of more than 30. The Office of Standards in Education has been told that there must be a primary inspection every four years for every school, but, at the present rate of performance, it will take eight years, because the Government have not provided the resources to allow the job to be done properly, and indeed intend to cut the budget for future years.
We have a Department for Education that knows a great deal about waste. The failed national curriculum cost tens of millions of pounds. The Minister who sits there on the Treasury Bench has an office in a building the rent of which is £1 million—and for the information of those schools that worry about capital, not £1 million a year, but more than £1 million a month rent is being paid for the Departments offices in Sanctuary buildings. That is where the real waste exists.
What about the example of the proposed city technology college in Brighton? The Government paid £2.3 million for the site. Two years later, when there were no takers, it had to be sold for £1.5 million—money wasted.
We may have a new Secretary of State with warm words and sweet smiles, but we have a harsh settlement for local government. Our children will suffer school budget cuts this year so that taxes can be cut next year. Our children should not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

Mr. Sebastian Coe: I am delighted to be able to contribute to the debate this evening, and I am equally delighted to be able to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He asked where Conservative Members were educated, and what their hopes were for their children. He

will know that I was educated in Sheffield in the state system from primary to tertiary level, and I hope that my children will enjoy the same benefits as I have gained from a state education.
I am also delighted to take part in a debate in which there is so much underlying accord between the two parties. In the past few weeks, Opposition Members have made a mad scramble to nick our clothing on many key issues. It must have been with difficulty and a sense of embarrassment that the hon. Member for Brightside has been forced to make U-turns on the subject of league tables, opt-out schools, charitable status and a number of other very important issues. I hazard a guess that there are more U-turns to come—and not only in education.
I recognise that there have been fewer emotive debates in the House this year. However, in the county of Cornwall I have rarely witnessed a debate in which so much mischief and emotional blackmail has been peddled by so few to so many. I hazard a guess that, if the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council had a remit for health, it would have trooped out nurses rather than teachers in this ritual dance.
The Liberal Democrats have cynically used education in the county in an attempt to derive some rather shabby political advantages. They circulated a bogus and misleading petition in that county; my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and I have written to the leader of the Liberal Democrats asking him to withdraw it. The Liberal Democrats have made a tremendous amount of mischief in Cornwall, but not one Liberal Democrat representative from that county has set foot in the Chamber all afternoon. I think that that shows in true relief the crocodile tears that they have shed over the issue.
The bogus petition circulated in Cornwall simply said that children in that county were worth £100 less than children in any other part of the country. That is a shabby statistical sleight of hand. The Liberals did not take into account the area cost adjustment and other key components.
Will the Liberal Democrats in Cornwall tell the children on the Isles of Scilly, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, that the benefits of extra considerations will be removed? I have not noticed a huge campaign being carried out in the constituencies of Bermondsey, Christchurch and Newbury in favour of the removal of the area cost adjustment. There is total silence about that issue.
Cornwall sits mid-table as far as expenditure is concerned. In the past 20 years, spending on secondary and primary education has risen, and it has increased most profoundly in the past 10 years. At the annual general meeting in his constituency a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives described the whole argument being pushed by Liberal Democrat councillors and Members of Parliament in that county as lies, damned lies and Liberal Democrat statistics. We must punch a hole in those statistics, because they do not hold water.
There is no doubt that this local government settlement is tight; it would be naive and coy of me to pretend otherwise. However, I ask the county to look very carefully at its reserves; at the amount of money that is held back centrally for administrative services and for surplus places. It should examine its unspent balances and look very carefully at reordering its priorities.
If the county sacks teachers—which is what it is threatening to do—let us make it clear that that is the priority of a Liberal Democrat-controlled county. It is not the priority of the Conservative grouping, the Labour grouping or the independent grouping in that county.
The Liberal Democrats are finding life a little difficult. They promised the earth in the build-up to the county elections a year ago, and they are now finding that the reality of democratic control means that occasionally they must make difficult decisions. As I am told time and again by the council that reserves are sacrosanct and should not be touched, I will leave the House with an interesting observation about my previous political year.
In the parlance of Match of the Day pundits, it was a year of two halves. I spent the first half of my year fighting with county hall and imploring the council to dip into its reserves in order to reinstate two primary schools in my constituency—Trevithick school in Camborne and Stithians school in the village where I live—which had been cynically removed and placed down the list of the councils priorities for capital expenditure. When I approached county hall about the matter, I was told that under no circumstance could I push the council any further on the question of dipping into its reserves.
I spent the second half of my political year fighting county hall about the imposition of four new age traveller transit sites in my constituency. Anyone who is familiar with the constituency of Falmouth and Camborne will know that we need four new age traveller transit sites like we need a hole in the head.
County hall said that, if I could not support its bid to Government for funding—which was to be repealed three weeks later—it would dip into county reserves. Education priorities in the county of Cornwall were demonstrated by the refusal of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament to oppose the establishment of those sites, and by the councillors who sat in the background and hoped that the whole issue would go away.
We ask a great deal of teachers in this country and in my constituency. They are committed, loyal and professional. I was educated in the state system. I attended Tapton school in Sheffield, Abbeydale Grange and Loughborough university. They were two very good schools, and I was delighted to attend them, but we are now asking more from our teachers than we have ever asked before in exactly the same way as we are asking more of our police service.
Teachers in my constituency, and the length and breadth of the country, are dealing with children with fewer social skills than ever. I meet head teachers regularly at my parliamentary education forum, and they say exactly the same. There was a time when that was at least compensated for to some extent by childrens television. The waterfall of rubbish that passes for childrens television is a sadness, and on Saturday mornings is little more than an orgy of commercial interests pushing videos and CDs—and it is not helping.
We have to kill the myth that what happened in the 1980s was a continual starvation of education funding in Britain. In 1980, we were spending 20.4 per cent. of our national income on welfare, including education. By 1990, we were spending 21.4 per cent. of a significantly larger national income.
In the county of Cornwall, and on national indices, there is no getting away from the fact that education has been well funded by the Government. Teachers pay has risen by 55 or 60 per cent. in real terms, and there have been increases of 35 per cent. on school equipment and books, and more than 50 per cent. in real terms on gross expenditure in education.
It is nonsense to pretend that those are the statistics of starvation and deprivation. They are not. We have a great duty to skill properly and make sure that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I am also delighted to take part in the debate, as I took part in the earlier one when the local government settlement was first announced. I offer the House my apologies for not being present when the debate began, but I was in a Select Committee until about 6.30 pm.
In the debate on the local government settlement, I drew the Ministers attention to the spending pressures that have been imposed upon my local authority, Barnsley. In the past four years, Barnsley has had to absorb enormous pressures. For example, between 1990 and 1994, the number of children on free school meals has increased to 9,591. That represents a 58 per cent. increase. The number of children receiving a grant for clothing has increased by 54 per cent. and there has been an enormous increase in the number of children requiring special needs education. The figure has increased from 1.3 to 3.1 per cent. of pupils in Barnsley. That has meant that the authority has had to find about another £6 million to meet those increased pressures.
When we discussed those issues in the last debate, the Minister looked askance when I drew attention to the facts about Barnsley and when I intervened on his speech, he said that I was trying to square the circle. The circle is that Barnsley has not been able to use the resources available for its children because of the cuts and their impact.
The schools maintenance programme is now estimated to be more than £12 million. That is what is required to bring schools up to standard. Some schools have bucket monitors. When it rains, children are sent out with buckets to catch the water because the buildings are in a such a bad state. The impact of the cuts will be enormous.
According to the report of the education department in Barnsley, another £3.7 million will be required this year to meet the 1994–95 standards. The Minister will be aware that our SSA has been considerably lower, but the authority is spending its full SSA on education.
If the Minister will pay attention, I shall point out the real impact of the cuts on Barnsley. The report prepared by the education department draws attention to the increased class sizes in our secondary schools. It points out that the class sizes for science and technology are likely to be in excess of 28. When one bears in mind the real need to increase the skills in that age group, particularly in terms of GNVQs, it is clear that larger class sizes will not be able to provide that little extra to enable pupils to reach the required standard. That will impact on opportunities in further education.
There will be an increase in the number of classes that will be taught by non-specialist teachers and that again will mean a lowering of standards. If non-specialist teachers are used in Barnsley, the standards there will be lower than those in areas that can afford qualified teachers. There will be large reductions in capitation. It is estimated, for instance, that in some secondary schools the capitation fee will be as low as £10 per pupil. The money restriction will mean a restriction on examination entries as well: children will be denied the opportunity to extend their education by taking examinations.
There will be no provision for pupils with additional needs. Non-statemented pupils will not receive the essential support that they require. I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is present: she probably is not aware of the impact that the cuts will have in Barnsley. Class sizes will increase in secondary schools, particularly in science and technology. As I have said, that will have a huge impact on general national vocational qualifications. Children need to specialise if they are to use their skills in jobs.
Class sizes will also increase in primary schools. The Secretary of State may not know that it is estimated that some class sizes in Barnsley may reach more than 40. Primary education is particularly important to children in their formative years, but many children in Barnsley will not have the opportunities that are available to children in other areas.
There will also be an increase in mixed-age groups. Many schools will have three age groups in one class, and there will be cross-phasing: for instance, key stages 1 and 2 will be in the same class. There will be no provision for pupils with additional needs, in both primary and secondary schools.

Mr. Alan Howarth: All that we know about the world before us tells us that our investment in education will be crucial for the personal development of our children, for the quality of our democracy and society—if we fail to educate children adequately, the public expenditure bill will ineluctably come back on the social security and police budgets—and for our capacity to compete in an ever-more demanding global economy in which knowledge-based activities and intellectual skills are increasingly at a premium.
I note with satisfaction that the Government have indeed invested in education. They have increased spending in real terms by 50 per cent. per pupil. I note the enormous increase in the numbers who stay at school after the age of 16, the exciting developments in further education and the huge rise in participation in higher education. I share the Governments pride in that. Now, however, my right hon. and hon. Friends seem to be withdrawing from that commitment. They are reducing their planned expenditure on education, and just at a time when the fiscal imperative for public expenditure restraint has abated. In the coming year, the public sector borrowing requirement will be 3 per cent. of gross domestic product; it is heading towards 0.75 per cent. of GDP in 1997–98. We can afford to invest properly in education; indeed, we cannot afford not to.
Of course it is not easy to balance growth in investment with tight cost control, but that is the task of responsible central Government and local authorities. My right hon.

and hon. Friends argue that it will be possible, by dint of increased efficiency, to maintain education provision within budgets that increase below inflation. The scope for efficiency gains varies markedly from authority to authority. Every LEA, like every large organisation, is capable of some efficiency improvements. At one time, I was sharply critical of Warwickshire, considering that there was scope for savings on marginal expenditure and improved efficiency. Then, for two years in succession, my county was capped, and in the three subsequent years the Government permitted the county to increase expenditure only below inflation.
The squeeze on Warwickshire has been tight and its administrative expenditure is below the county average. Any economies that remain within Warwickshires power would not be commensurate with the savings that the Government require. The effect on the county of capping has been the more severe because Warwickshires SSA is plainly wrong. The theory is that SSAs underpinned by central Government grant provide for parity of provision throughout the country. As it is, Warwickshire is spending 9 per cent. above the SSA and 3.6 per cent. per head below the counties average, yet one third of its primary schools have classes of more than 30 pupils and one tenth have classes of more than 35. The county effectively has no discretionary awards and its youth service has been cut by half.
The conclusion must be that the Government have miscalculated Warwickshires SSA. The Treasury and the Department of the Environment should acknowledge that, whatever the theory, in practice SSAs throw up anomalies and they should act to correct the systems deficiencies and injustices.
For five years, Members of Parliament representing Warwickshire constituencies and representatives of all parties on the county council have been waiting on Ministers to explain the deficiencies of our SSAs and to seek help. Always we are told that the matter will be looked at for next year and that Warwickshire should sort things out within the Association of County Councils. When next year comes, there is no significant relief and we know that other counties in the ACC will not come to Warwickshires rescue because that would be to their detriment.
The Governments present requirements are impossible for Warwickshire to meet without significantly damaging education provision. The 1.2 per cent. increase in the SSA is academic because, under the cap, the county is permitted to increase spending by only half of 1 per cent.—yet the Government require teachers pay to be increased by 2.7 per cent. We can square that circle only by reducing the number of teaching posts and increasing class sizes.
Of course it is right to improve teachers pay. On 24 November 1990—a pregnant period in the history of the Conservative party—my right hon. Friend who became Prime Minister was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying:
We need to give teachers back the status they once had and that will mean more money for the right teachers delivering the right service.
Teachers want to deliver the right service.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows the difficulties in Warwickshire because we have had a series of meetings with her. She knows that our concern is shared across the political parties. In her internal letter, leaked in The Times Educational Supplement, she warned of the damage and of what could happen to the


atmosphere in the education service that my right hon. Friend, through her commitment to the nations children and to teachers, has done so much to improve.
Having studied Warwickshires school budgets, I know how well founded were my right hon. Friends warnings. The budget for Stratford high school for the forthcoming year is down £310,000. That secondary school will have classes of more than 30 pupils, in classrooms that were never designed for such numbers. Eight teachers will lose their jobs and the school has averted the loss of another eight posts only by using reserves accumulated to improve the computer network to meet the requirements of the national curriculum. The school is even more deeply worried about the consequences of the following year, because it cannot use those one-off reserves twice.
In Brailes junior and infant school, the number of full-time teachers will be reduced from five to four and classes will increase to 34 pupils. Shipston junior and infant school loses £43,000 from its budget, and Bidford junior and infant school loses £35,000. Bidford and Studley junior schools will have their special educational needs provision cut. The Minister of State has done a marvellous job improving the policy framework for special needs, but we shall not realise his aspirations if we do not have the requisite resources.
Warwickshire school governors are public-spirited people, and we have done much to increase their responsibilities. They are now faced with a cruel dilemma. Twenty Warwickshire school governing bodies have decided to return the responsibility for drawing up school budgets to the local education authority. I cannot criticise them for doing so.
At Shottery junior and infant school, there are plans to raise money on appeal, to the tune of £50 per family. Those families have paid their taxes. They would be happy to pay more to ensure adequate education provision. They would be happy to pay an extra 23p a week on their council tax. That would raise £2 million, which would be enough to save the jobs of 100 teachers in the county—but the Government have imposed a cap on the county that prevents them from doing so.
If these limitations on education spending are designed to clear the way for tax cuts later this year, I repudiate that policy. It would be entirely wrong to cut taxes on the affluent while the needs of our public services are not properly met. We are not highly taxed in this country. Historically, people have voted Conservative because they have seen the Conservative party as the party of relatively low taxation. That remains true. A Labour Government would always intervene more and spend more; taxes will always be lower under a Conservative Government than under a Labour Government.
More importantly, people have voted Conservative because they have seen us as more competent to manage the economy and they have accepted our genuine commitment to public services. My right hon. Friends have done much to retrieve the Conservative partys reputation for good economic management. Evidence of that is all around us in the economic recovery. By that same token, we can afford to improve public services. We shall not be forgiven if we neglect the trust that people have placed in us to provide properly for the public services.
Unless my hon. Friend can offer me some immediate relief for Warwickshire schools this evening, I would be failing my constituents if I were to support the Government in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), but I begin mine by complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on his exposition of the educational failings of the Government—ably supported as he was by many Opposition Members. It is pity that we did not hear the same reasoned intellectual defence of the Governments position by Conservative Members. Instead they trotted out the same old myths—and Trot will be a word to which I will return when I deal with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) about Stalinism in Kent.
The Government amendment
welcomes the substantial increase in the real level of education spending since 1979; notes that in a tough settlement overall local authorities will still be able to spend more next year than in 1994–95.
Parents, governors, teachers and councillors throughout the land know that that claim is nonsense. The Governments capping limits restrict most LEAs to a cash increase of 0.5 per cent., out of which they must pay for the teachers pay rise of 2.7 per cent.—not to mention adult education, nursery education, increasing pupil numbers and special educational needs.
In real terms LEAs are having to cut an enormous £390 million from their education budgets, with the English shires bearing the brunt. There appears to be a consensus among all interested parties—including many Tory Ministers, Back Benchers and local councillors—that the current system of education funding does not work. There is widespread agreement that the funding awarded by the DFE for the 1995–96 financial year is inadequate and reveals a stark lack of understanding of the limitations under which schools are already struggling to function. Many simply will not be able to provide the amount and standard of service that is necessary without dramatic changes to schools make-up. There are countless nationwide illustrations of that.
Schools are often obliged to fund part or all of the teachers pay increase by adding tens of thousands of pounds to their payrolls. They are having to reduce numbers of teaching and support staff by means of pushing experienced teachers towards early retirement, voluntary redundancy, non-renewal of temporary contracts, or of taking on newly qualified, inexperienced teachers, rather than the more mature pedagogues who cost more on the salary scale. They are having to make further cuts in spending on books, equipment and maintenance. Faced with the possibility of staff cuts, schools are having to increase class sizes, resulting in less quality time teaching and more mixed-age and ability groups.
The Government show either culpable ignorance or malicious contempt for education, with their failure to address the reality of education in the country today. As the Secondary Heads Association—a body that includes the headmasters conference among its members—put it, there are systematic problems. First, future spending is largely determined by historical levels of spending, and that leads to all sorts of anomalies. Secondly, there is no


direct linkage between funding decisions and decisions regarding the type and amount of education provision that should be available. Thirdly, the data used to calculate budgets are far too removed from the actual costs.
If I may, I shall quote directly from the Conservative-dominated Education Select Committee, which warned two years ago:
The decision that whilst schools would be funded largely by reference to pupil numbers, the actual costs (including actual, rather than average salaries) which they incurred would be charged to their budgets. Whilst this is, on the surface, relatively simple and fair, schools which in the past had a relatively high proportion of experienced teachers at the top of the salary scale (and therefore higher costs) have lost money as a result of a switch to a system of resource allocation which assumes that all teachers cost the same amount. Many of those losing schools will have lost relatively small amounts, but anecdotal evidence has suggested that a significant minority of schools have sustained losses which can only be absorbed within a relatively small and inflexible budget by parting with senior teachers and replacing them with inexperienced teachers, or not replacing them at all.
What does that tell us about standards in our schools?
The hon. Member for Dartford made heavy going of his claim of increased or better standards from the Government. Let me give him a yardstick with which to test the standards that the Government have achieved over the past 16 years, noting that, within the age group 16 to 24, the education of a huge number of people has been determined by 16 years of Tory Government. In that age group, 750,000 young people are out of education, out of training, out of jobs, out of benefit and out of Government statistics. I am afraid that it is a distortion to look only towards one end of the scale in terms of the end product of the education system.
That has now come to pass with a vengeance. The examples of the losses to schools are many. I shall give the House just a few. The Secretary of States own authority—Norfolk—has suffered. Its education SSA for next year is £234.8 million. Last year, it spent £252.5 million. It has had a cut of £3.276 million. What that really means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said, is that cuts were made to discretionary awards, community education, adult education and school meals. Nottinghamshire, which houses the Chancellors constituency—we heard from the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) earlier—spent £378 million last year. But the pay increase will cost the authority nearly £6 million and there will be a shortfall of £2.5 million. If that does not mean cuts, I do not know what does.
Oxfordshire, where the previous Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) has his seat, is an excellent example of the duplicity of the Governments amendment. The frustration and anger of middle England has manifested itself there, as in Warwickshire, Shropshire and other shires not noted for their revolutionary tendencies. In Oxfordshire, one can quote Wesley Green middle school, on the now infamous Blackbird Leys estate, which is now £64,000 down on what it was spending three years ago, and it anticipates losing a further £40,000. Or Mr. Betteridge, a parent governor at Burford school, who said that schools now had to decide which law to break: whether to exceed their budgets or fail to deliver the national curriculum. A teacher at the

same school suggested that it would lose six posts. Judith Bennett, who chairs the governing body of Chalgrove primary school, said:
We are going to concentrate nine classes into eight. At the moment, they are low to mid-20s and this will now go to over 30.
The cuts to local authorities were so great that it moved a Tory councillor to prepare a confidential briefing paper to Oxfordshires Conservative Members of Parliament. He wrote:
It is clear that 1995–96 contains real problems and is going to be the most difficult budget the county has had to set,
with only two services, education and social services, costing enough to
bear the brunt of the necessary reductions … It seems certain that there will be reductions in school budgets, possibly of 3 to 4 per cent.
He said that primary schools would probably cope by reducing numbers of learning support staff and that the
secondary schools may have to reduce teaching numbers with an impact on non-contact time or slight increases in class size.
If Conservative Members are ignorant, it is culpable ignorance. There may be method in the Governments madness because in The Guardian of 7 February another Tory councillor stated:
The silver lining for the Tories is a possible resuscitation of the opt-out policy. Only one Oxfordshire school has gone grant-maintained. It is to be hoped that budget pressures will force more of them to realise they can kick away the crutches of the LEA and stand quite adequately on their own two feet.
A Berkshire head said:
If things get worse we would look at going for CTC status and opting out. It sends a shiver down my spine to be forced down this route.
The Prime Minister would deny that the cuts are real or politically motivated. He would certainly find it hard to convince Mr. Brian Brown, a head teacher in a primary school in the Prime Ministers constituency, who in his anger at the £20,000 worth of cuts that he has been forced to make, told The Daily Telegraph, which is not exactly a radical newspaper:
Mr. Major is not doing his job representing the interests of the people here.
Most of us do not think that he is doing the job of representing the interests of the country, and certainly not in terms of education. The House should note this in the light of his ignorant comment last week when he said that if any local authority was thinking of cutting teachers in the classroom, he would like to ask it what saving it had made in non-teaching aspects of education. Clearly, he has no understanding of how the school community functions on a day-to-day basis, nor of the increasing bureaucracy involved in running a school, much of which is due to Government changes.
I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will again tell local education authorities to set sensible priorities. On 21 March the Prime Minister said that there were two administrators for every three teachers. That is utter nonsense and the right hon. Gentlemans assumption vanishes immediately under examination. [Interruption.] That is a credit to the education system that operated when I was at school. Left-wing educationists taught us to prepare adequately, a function in which the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) does not appear to be adequate.
About 65,000 non-manual staff are employed by local education authorities. Many of them are important front-line personnel on whom key services depend. They are educational psychologists, education welfare officers, inspectors and advisers, and youth and community workers. Only the residue can fairly be labelled as administrative staff, and they certainly form less than 5 per cent. of the total education complement.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside said, staff watch figures for local authority employment show that there are 404,000 teachers and 337,000 staff in England and Wales. The others category includes 162,000 manual workers such as cleaners, caretakers and ground maintenance workers. The Department for Educations evidence, which is quoted in the 1995 review body report, is that, of the balance, 109,000 are employed in schools in England on education support and administrative and clerical work.
Does the Prime Minister seriously suggest that school secretaries, dinner ladies, caretakers, psychologists, education welfare officers, advisers and youth workers should be sacked? The sensible citizen would hope not. The Secretary of State reinforced the cynical image of this tired, discredited Government when she wrote to Conservative Members urging them to question local authority spending on nursery education as schools face budget cuts. Margaret Lally, chair of the National Campaign for Nursery Education, said:
We have always doubted the Governments real commitment to increasing state nursery education. This just shows how little they have.
The National Governors Council agrees, given the Prime Ministers pledge to his party conference, to provide nursery education within the lifetime of this Parliament. [Interruption.]
I shall now deal with some of the earlier comments. I could not believe them and had to consider them at great length. The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) made a big play about the assisted places scheme. I remind him of the review that he wrote about state and private education, and the value of the assisted places scheme. I am sure that he will take kindly to my quoting him directly:
Certainly ministers, including myself, have claimed in the annual debate on the scheme in Parliament that the sons and daughters of bus and lorry drivers, miners, butchers, recent immigrants and one-parent families, for example, have through the scheme received a first-class education … Even more significantly, 68 per cent of mothers and 51 per cent of fathers of such pupils attended either private or selective education.
I suspect, however, that the aspirant assisted-place parents with their educational backgrounds would not have sent their children to inner-city sink comprehensives … Thus if there is any damage it must be to the better … comprehensive schools.
I cannot think of anything that is more invidious and more designed to undermine the education provision of the vast majority of children.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: rose—

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am conscious of the time. I have given way many times.
I move to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I do not know whether he is in his place. He pleaded—

Sir Rhodes Boyson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Member for West Derbyshire said that he waited 28 hours for an answer from the chairman of the Derbyshire education committee. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. I managed to meet the chairman today. He was here taking part in a lobby with thousands of Derbyshire parents, teachers and pupils. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not go out and meet them today.

Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has said that I refused to meet people today. He is wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Member for Dartford talks about Stalinism. I do not know what he knows about that or about democratic centralism. I know a fair bit about both. Outside the Militant Tendency, I have never known of a better example of democratic centralism than the way in which the Conservative party conducts the countrys affairs.
When the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) wants to sing the praises of grant-maintained schools, I hope that he will consider the position of St. James school in Bolton, where the head teacher was sacked for corruption. One may say that that was the exception that proved the rule. I could not understand why the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation, which had a base in that school, could not, apparently, monitor what was going on there.
Education in Kent was raised by the hon. Members for Dartford and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in an intervention, as Hansard will show. Whenever I see the hon. Member for Dartford and his close friends and collaborators the Members for Gravesham and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—who is off on an antipodean visit—I tend to think of the Bash Street Kids. I think of Plug, Danny and Smiffy in educational terms. In a kinder moment, I tend to think of the Three Stooges—Larry, Curly and Mo—except that they were amusing. There is nothing amusing about the attritional warfare that those hon. Gentlemen wage against education provision in Kent.

Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat the attack on me? I could not make out what he was saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I shall provide Hansard with a translation if it needs it. The hon. Member for Dartford fails to point out that, in the 18 years before the new administration came into Kent, not one new nursery place was built in Kent. Eight new nursery units have been set up this year, including one in his constituency.
The hon. Gentleman failed to point out that the administration has given £750,000 to voluntary and independent sectors, that it has doubled the number of


classroom assistants in infant classes or where there are children with special needs, and that it has reduced the number of children waiting for special needs assessments. It has also injected an extra £11.8 million for children with special educational needs by fully funding the code of practice. He also failed to point out that it has made good a shortfall of nearly £500,000 for section 11 funding which was caused by Home Office decisions and withdrawals, that it fully funded the teachers pay rise last year and that it is providing £6 million extra to take care of repairs in the county. The silence that greets these points is instructive.
I urge the House to vote for the Labour motion and to treat the Government amendment with the contempt that it deserves.

The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The few people who have witnessed the debate—sadly, there have been relatively few—would be forgiven for thinking that it has taken place under entirely false pretences. This is styled an Opposition day debate—a debate called by the Opposition—and one would therefore have assumed that the Opposition regarded the subject as being of passing importance. However, I have made a careful note of the numbers of Labour and Liberal Members present during this debate on what the Opposition claim is an important subject close to their hearts.
At 5.30 pm, there were four Labour Back Benchers and one Liberal Member in the Chamber. At 8.15 pm, there were two Labour Back Benchers and no Liberal Members at all. Even half an hour ago, there were as many as six Labour Members present and the same Liberal Member—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—who, I concede, has been here most of the day and who is still in his place.
The numbers that I have cited are bad enough but the depths of cynicism displayed by the Opposition are well illustrated by the briefing that has fallen into my hands. It is headed PLP Briefing by David Blunkett MP. I shall not weary the House by relating its irrelevances—

Mr. Blunkett: Read it out.

Mr. Forth: I shall read out part of it. The hon. Gentleman must be patient—I shall read his words to him. The last page of the briefing states:
We now have a major campaign running throughout the country with a petition available, leaflets prepared and education is a central part of our thrust for May 4.
So much for the alleged spontaneity of what is happening across the country. It is perfectly obvious that the protests that the Opposition claim are taking place are nothing more than a cynical and carefully orchestrated attempt to worry people unduly.
Regrettably, the debate has not, as one might have hoped, been about standards, achievement and opportunities in education. We would have welcomed such a debate. In reality, it has been about money. I shall dwell for a moment on money because a number of interesting facts have emerged.
For example, it has emerged that the total rates, community charge and council tax arrears run up by local authorities amounts to some £1.5 billion. In other words, authorities have failed to collect money that they should have collected, although some are at the same time

complaining about not having enough money. That is bad enough, but the independent Audit Commission said that there are some £500 million worth of savings to be made through local authority efficiencies.
We have also heard that surplus school places could represent savings for local authorities of up to £250 million. Mention has been made of local education authority and school balances. The independent schoolteachers review body said that its pay award was affordable.
In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Ofsted report. She quoted the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) as having said that the chief inspectors report was
about as unbiased as you can get.
She went on to point out that the same report said about education money:
In overall terms, the provision of resources is satisfactory.
All in all, the picture is one of many opportunities being available to the local authorities that care to use them and manage their affairs and choose their priorities properly. They can make available to themselves substantial sums of money to spend on education, if they so wish.
That is the key to this whole debate. If we then consider individual authorities, some very interesting facts emerge. I was told today that, apparently, there was some sort of protest emanating from Derbyshire. Labour Members could not make up their minds earlier about how many people were involved in that protest. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has not been seen since and, certainly, has not been present throughout the debate, claimed that 5,000 people were involved. The hon. Member for Brightside thought that the figure was 3,000 and then said that, anyway, there were a few thousand involved.
We do not know how many people were involved in that protest, but what has emerged is that the people who were here from Derbyshire included teachers and, it is said, pupils. I have been told—I cannot believe that this is true—that the teachers were taking what in the trade is known as a Baker day, so that they could come to the House of Commons on a political protest. I will be making it my business to make further inquiries about that, because if teachers in Derbyshire or anywhere else are using a Baker day to be away from their classrooms for a political protest, I would want to know a lot more about it.
The situation is worse than that. If supply cover was having to be introduced in those teachers classrooms to continue the education of their pupils, I would like to know how Derbyshire could find the money for supply cover to cover a political protest at the same time as it is apparently complaining about a lack of money.

Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for threats to be made against persons approaching this House with a view to lobbying their Members of Parliament? Is that not a breach of parliamentary privilege—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All hon. Members are responsible for the words that they utter in this Chamber.

Mr. Forth: I would have thought that the House would regard it as a dereliction of duty if I did not make it my


business to satisfy myself that taxpayers money, which is intended to be spent on education, was not being spent instead on political protest.

Dr. Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not honestly think that there can be anything further to that point of order. It is very clear. Every hon. Member is responsible for his own words in this Chamber. That is crystal clear.

Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It had better be a new point of order.

Dr. Reid: I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is a breach of parliamentary privilege to threaten those approaching a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that he should write to Madam Speaker about such matters.

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Forth: I seem—[Interruption.] I seem to have touched a rather raw nerve end.

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Mr. Forth: I shall follow the rather bad example of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and I shall not take any interventions.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Absolutely!

Mr. Forth: I was going to point out that expenditure on education is of course a matter for local education authorities. That has emerged clearly from todays debate. What has been really important about today is the number of interesting examples that my hon. Friends have given of what their local education authorities have chosen as priorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), in a very telling intervention, pointed out that her local authority of Lancashire had increased its administrative staff over three or four years from 503 to 548. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) pointed out that Nottinghamshire had run up an overtime bill for its staff of £10 million and was carrying 20,000 surplus school places. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) pointed out that Ealing has some £17 million in its reserves.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) referred to 20,000 surplus school places in Derbyshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), in an excellent speech, pointed out not only that his authority of Wiltshire was spending 5.2 per cent. of its expenditure on administration, but, unbelievably, that it was wasting valuable money, which could be going on education, on pursuing some sort of anti-hunting vendetta.
Such examples tell us clearly not only that the opportunities exist for local authorities to reorder their priorities and put more money into education, but that authorities such as those mentioned by my hon. Friends are wilfully refusing to order their spending priorities so as to put money into education. That is a condemnation of the kind that the debate has brought out clearly, but which Opposition Members have chosen to ignore completely.
What has emerged during the debate about Opposition policies? Predictably, the answer is almost nothing. Nothing has emerged about what the Opposition would do about education—although I must admit that the hon. Member for Bath has said that his party would put more money into education. However, on a platform that he shared with me recently—I am breaking no confidences because it was a public occasion—he said that the absolute priority for the Liberal Democrats was to put all the money into education for under-fives.
So the Liberal Democrats are not talking about funding the teachers pay increase, repairing crumbling school buildings or anything similar. I realise that education for the under-fives is where their priorities lie, but we should not let the debate pass imagining that they would put more money into the teachers pay award, which is the subject of the Opposition motion.
We listened in vain to hear what the Labour party would do about the education spending issues that Labour Members talk about. They talk about class sizes, arrears of building repairs and further and higher education expansion; occasionally they refer to student grants and loans; they have been known to refer to the reading recovery scheme. But they are not prepared or able to give any idea of whether they would fund even one of those areas. There is silence on that subject, and that is one of the most telling facts to emerge from the debate—the avoidance of any commitment by Opposition Members on what they would do to improve or even to change education spending. They are silent, and that fact should be well known.
Things get worse when Opposition Members start talking about standards and quality in education. As was pointed out forcefully by my right hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), we know all too clearly that time and again when the Government have brought forward positive measures to improve education standards, the Labour party has systematically opposed them. Labour opposed testing pupils to establish their educational needs, and opposed the publication of school results, until—

Mr. Blunkett: No, we did not.

Mr. Forth: Labour opposed that until the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) experienced a conversion. Now he tells us that not only does he welcome the publication of results—

Mr. Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: No, I shall not.
Apparently the Leader of the Opposition would welcome the publication of even more details about what is happening in schools—although whether his Back Benchers support him remains to be seen.
As for the hon. Member for Brightside, he said recently about grant-maintained schools:
I am having no truck with middle-class, left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area.
I cannot imagine whom he was thinking of. And when he was challenged during the debate about his attitude to grant-maintained schools earlier in the debate he said something from a sedentary position, which I shall now have written into Hansard for him, because I made a note of what he said. It was, I have not changed my views on opt-outs. In other words, in spite of his recent attempts to con headmasters of grant-maintained schools, the hon. Gentleman has not changed his mind on opt-outs, and his implacable opposition to grant-maintained status remains unchanged.
Therefore the debate has been informative, but not in the ways that the Opposition wanted it to be. We have established that education is in no sense starved of resources. It has received more and more money systematically, year on year, ever since the Government have been in office.
Secondly, we have clearly shown our commitment to improving quality and standards in education. All of the measures which we have put in place—the curriculum, testing, independent inspection, the publication of the performance results of schools—have systematically ensured an increase in the quality and standards in education. That is our continuing commitment. We have heard no commitments and nothing of any substance from the Opposition tonight. I urge the House utterly to reject the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 289.

Division No. 119]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Canavan, Dennis


Allen, Graham
Cann, Jamie


Alton, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Chidgey, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Church, Judith


Austin-Walker, John
Clapham, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Jean


Berry, Roger
Cox, Tom


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blunkett, David
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Darling, Alistair


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davidson, Ian


Burden, Richard
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Caborn, Richard
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Callaghan, Jim
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)





Denham, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Donohoe, Brian H
Litherland, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livingstone, Ken


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eastham, Ken
Loyden, Eddie


Enright, Derek
Lynne, Ms Liz


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCartney, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McFall, John


Fisher, Mark
McKelvey, William


Flynn, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maclennan, Robert


Foulkes, George
McMaster, Gordon


Fraser, John
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
MacShane, Denis


Galbraith, Sam
McWilliam, John


Galloway, George
Madden, Max


Gapes, Mike
Maddock, Diana


Garrett, John
Mahon, Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mandelson, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marek, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godsiff, Roger
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Graham, Thomas
Martlew, Eric


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meacher, Michael


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gunnell, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hain, Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hall, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Harman, Ms Harriet
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harvey, Nick
Morgan, Rhodri


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Heppell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hinchliffe, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hodge, Margaret
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Murphy, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Olner, Bill


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pope, Greg


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Ingram, Adam
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Janner, Greville
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Keen, Alan
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rogers, Allan


Khabra, Piara S
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)






Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Tipping, Paddy


Ruddock, Joan
Touhig, Don


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis


Sheerman, Barry
Tyler, Paul


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Vaz, Keith


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Short, Clare
Wallace, James


Simpson, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wigley, Dafydd


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea Wesst)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Spellar, John
Wilson, Brian


Stevenson, George
Wise, Audrey


Stott, Roger
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wray, Jimmy


Straw, Jack
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Mr. Joe Benton and


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Jim Dowd.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Colvin, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Congdon, David


Amess, David
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Bates, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Body, Sir Richard
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Sir Anthony


Booth, Hartley
Dykes, Hugh


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowis, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Bright, Sir Graham
Faber, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Browning, Mrs Angela
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Fishburn, Dudley


Budgen, Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butler, Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carttiss, Michael
French, Douglas


Cash, William
Fry, Sir Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gale, Roger


Churchill, Mr
Gallie, Phil


Clappison, James
Gardiner, Sir George


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gillan, Cheryl





Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gorst, Sir John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Hendry, Charles
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hicks, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lament, Rt Hon Norman
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, Sir David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter






Thomason, Roy
Waterson, Nigel


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whittingdale, John


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trend, Michael
Willetts, David


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Yeo Tim


Walden, George
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Ward, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 254.

Division No. 120]
[10.15pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carttiss, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Churchill, Mr


Amess, David
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Coe, Sebastian


Atkins, Robert
Congdon, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Bates, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Batiste, Spencer
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Day, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Booth, Hartley
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh


Brandreth, Gyles
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Brazier, Julian
Elletson, Harold


Bright, Sir Graham
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evennett, David


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Butcher, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butler, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fishburn, Dudley





Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, Sir David


Fry, Sir Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, Sir John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hague, William
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawksley, Warren
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Raymond (Abdn S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Soames, Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)






Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Viggers, Peter


Steen, Anthony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stephen, Michael
Walden, George


Stem, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stewart, Allan
Waller, Gary


Streeter, Gary
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sweeney, Walter
Waterson, Nigel


Sykes, John
Watts, John


Tapsell Sir Peter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thomason, Roy
Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thumham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trend, Michael



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Bowen Wells.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Jean


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Austin-Walker, John
Dalyell, Tam


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Darling, Alistair


Barnes, Harry
Davidson, Ian


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bell, Stuart
Denham, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, Andrew F
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, David
Eagle, Ms Angela


Boateng, Paul
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Keith
Enright, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Etherington, Bill


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Burden, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Byers, Stephen
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell-Savours, D N
Foster, Don (Bath)


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Cann, Jamie
Fraser, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Fyfe, Maria


Chidgey, David
Galbraith, Sam


Church, Judith
Galloway, George


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Coffey, Ann
Godsiff, Roger


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)





Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gunnell, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hain, Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hall, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Harman, Ms Harriet
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harvey, Nick
Morgan, Rhodri


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Heppell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hinchliffe, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hodge, Margaret
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Murphy, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Olner, Bill


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pope, Greg


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Ingram, Adam
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Janner, Greville
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Keen, Alan
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rogers, Allan


Khabra, Piara S
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Short, Clare


Llwyd, Elfyn
Simpson, Alan


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCartney, Ian
Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McKelvey, William
Stevenson, George


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stott, Roger


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Maclennan, Robert
Straw, Jack


McMaster, Gordon
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


MacShane, Denis
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McWilliam, John
Timms, Stephen


Madden, Max
Tipping, Paddy


Maddock, Diana
Touhig, Don


Mahon, Alice
Turner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Marek, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Wallace, James


Martlew, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Wareing, Robert N


Meacher, Michael
Wicks, Malcolm






Wigley, Dafydd
Wray, Jimmy


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Joe Benton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the substantial increase in the real level of education spending since 1979; notes that in a tough settlement overall local authorities will still be able to spend more next year than in 1994–95; looks to them to set sensible priorities; welcomes the substantial improvement in standards of achievement by pupils in recent years, as demonstrated by examination and test results and by school inspection reports; and applauds the Governments education policies which are further driving up education standards, and giving parents more choice and information for the benefit of their children.

WAYS AND MEANS

Atomic Energy Authority Bill

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to the transfer of property, rights and liabilities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in accordance with schemes under the Act.—[Mr. Page.]

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matter relating exclusively to Scotland),

PRISONS

That the draft Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (Release of Prisoners etc.) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
That the draft Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 (Release of Prisoners etc.) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Drugs and Appliances

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 643), dated 8th March 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
Opposition Members are not here solely to voice our opposition to this savage increase in taxes on the sick; we are here to give Conservative Members a chance to speak for their constituents, and to defeat the proposal. We want to hear from the Government why they are pushing through this increase, this year.
It is clear beyond doubt that, throughout all their years in office, the Government have pursued a policy of milking prescription charges as fully as they dare. Despite what the Daily Mail claimed was a pledge not to increase prescription charges, the process began with a whopping increase of 125 per cent. in the very first months of the Governments life in office. That was followed by a rise of 55 per cent. in 1980.
In fact, since the Conservative Governments election in 1979, in only two years—the boom years of 1988 and 1989—has the increase in the prescription charge been about the same as the rate of inflation. In every other year the charge has risen by massively more than the inflation rate: there was an increase of 25 per cent. in 1984–85—conveniently after the general election—four times more than the then rate of inflation, which had risen by 6.9 per cent. In the following years, increases averaged two to three times the rate of inflation, but since 1992 and the last general election we have again seen increases massively ahead of inflation.
The increase was 10.3 per cent. in 1991–92, when the inflation rate was 1.3 per cent. It was 11.8 per cent. in April 1992–93, when the inflation rate was 2.6 per cent. The regulations would raise prescription charges 10.5 per cent.—three times the current rate of inflation. If the price of bread had increased at the same rate as prescriptions, a loaf would cost £8.08. A pint of milk would cost £3.78. The proposed charges bear no relation to average price rises but bear a close relation to a secretive, undeclared tax on the sick—only on them, and levied only because they are sick.
Those spoils—that loot—is being extracted from the sick by overcharging, in half of all cases, for the medicines sold. We know that that is true because the Secretary of State herself admitted that daylight robbery. Answering a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) last December, the right hon. Lady said that in 55 per cent. of cases the total cost to the NHS of a prescription item was less than the proposed charge of £5.25.
Given that charges have increased way ahead of inflation and in many cases are providing a profit for the Treasury, they are not just a tax but a fiscal mugging. It is the kind of criminal offence that Dolly Rawlings, the powerful widow of gangland fame, would utterly deplore. The Dolly Rawlings of the Department of Health, however, is just the kind of mugger who gives crime and taxation such a bad name.

Mr. John Marshall: No doubt the right hon. Lady read the article in The Economist last


weekend which suggested that she does not have a policy on health. What would the right hon. Lady do with prescription charges? Would she get rid of them?

Mrs. Beckett: I did not read that article in The Economist. Obviously it would have been a waste of time.

Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Lady should have read it.

Mrs. Beckett: Well, clearly it did not convey much information to the hon. Gentleman, so it seems that it was not worth reading. Our approach to prescription charges has been stated repeatedly in the House. We believe that the whole system of prescription charges should be subject to a thoroughgoing review. The system has huge absurdities. It is crystal clear—not just from statements made from the Dispatch Box but from the record of past Labour Governments—that we never have and never would use prescription charges as a tax on the sick, in the way that the Government have done since 1979.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): A Labour Government introduced them.

Mrs. Beckett: That is not true. I know that the Prime Minister made that claim at the Dispatch Box two or three days ago, but the Minister should know better than to believe anything said by his right hon. Friend at Prime Ministers Question Time. A Conservative Government introduced prescription charges—

Mr. Malone: indicated assent.

Mrs. Beckett: So the Minister knew that his remark was not true. A Conservative Government introduced prescription charges, not a Labour Government. I hope that we have nailed that lie.
Ministers are quick to argue that the level of charges is unimportant because 80 per cent. of prescriptions are dispensed free. That creates the impression—as I am sure it is intended to do—that only 20 per cent. of people pay, and then only those who can afford to pay. As always when it comes to tax, Ministers are being at least economical with the truth. The latest figures for 1993 show that no fewer than 50 per cent. of the population are liable to pay prescription charges.
It is not true that all vulnerable people are exempt. Ministers list pensioners, children, people on income support, pregnant women and people with certain specific conditions. However, the Library calculates that if one excludes the only two groups who are completely exempt—pensioners and children—85 per cent. of the remaining population are liable to pay. The overwhelming majority of men and women, whatever their income or family circumstances, are liable. People whose incomes are low enough to receive council tax benefit are not thereby exempt. Those in receipt of invalidity benefit—who by definition are long-term sick or disabled—are not exempt. Asthmatics and people suffering from cystic fibrosis are among those with long-term illness who have to pay for their prescribed medication. So do patients with AIDS, motor neurone disease, asthma, multiple sclerosis,

chronic rheumatoid arthritis, leukaemia, breast cancer, emphysema and renal failure, to name but a few. All are liable to pay prescription charges.

Mr. Malone: Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to the House today that she would include them in the list of exemptions if she ever had the opportunity to do so?

Mrs. Beckett: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to a thorough review, precisely because of the issue that he raises. There are huge numbers of people, some with diseases only relatively recently identified, but not one of whom has been added to the list. So far as I know, none of them has even been considered by the Government for adding to the list. The Governments policy is clear: huge increases in prescription charges, and no consideration of the addition of any of these groups.
The Minister knows perfectly well that the British Medical Association is calling for the kind of review that we advocate. First, there is a need to reconsider the list of those who are exempt, and the conditions that are included. Secondly, there is a need to look into the question of a person with one condition getting all their prescriptions free. These are serious and important issues which deserve careful consideration by the medical profession. That is what the medical profession wants, and what we would provide. The professsion does not want what the Minister is doing; it opposes it root and branch.

Mr. Malone: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister have a serious point to make?

Mr. Malone: Yes.

Mrs. Beckett: That will make a change.

Mr. Malone: I thought from the reaction of the House that my last point to the right hon. Lady was serious. When these matters were last looked at, on 21 March 1968, when a Labour Government were in power, the BMA set down the exemption conditions. Is the right hon. Lady telling the House that the BMA has come to her with a list to add to the exemptions laid down back then? If she is not, this debate is dishonest.

Mrs. Beckett: That is rubbish. Certainly the BMA was involved in the discussion of the list in 1968, but is the Minister suggesting that nothing has changed since then? How many people had AIDS in 1968? How many children had asthma then? What were the charges? What was the treatment available then, and how essential was it to peoples well-being?
A huge number of things have changed since 1968, but what has changed most is the prescription charge under the Conservative Government. Under the Labour Government, it did not increase by so much as one penny. Under the Conservatives, it has gone through the roof. And all the time Ministers refuse to look at new kinds of treatment, at new concerns which arise, and at a range of issues which the professionals believe deserve re-examination.
What is more, charges at the level that the regulations propose can be clinically damaging. I do not refer only to those who cannot, because of their incomes, afford to pay all their prescriptions, though they are a growing group. I spoke recently to a GP who explained that he had a patient


who was acutely depressed, who had just lost her job and who was extremely anxious about her financial position. It was likely that she would need to be on anti-depressants for some time. Because of the womans financial position, the doctor would have preferred to give her one long-term prescription, but because she was a suicide risk he dared not recommend more than a weeks supply. Regular weekly prescriptions at a regular weekly charge are increasing her costs, adding to her anxiety and damaging her chances of a speedy recovery.
Another patient, with an eye infection, was given a prescription that she did not collect because she could not afford it. A few days later she returned to her doctor with her eye in a much worse condition. He was so horrified at what had happened that he paid for the drug himself.
The BMA says today that, with each appalling rise in prescription charges, doctors are concerned that more and more patients will be dissuaded from visiting their surgeries at all. All GPs and pharmacists have anecdotal evidence of patients asking which of two or more items on a prescription form are the most important because they cannot afford to pay for more than one at a time.
It is crystal clear that this is a tax, that many more are liable to pay it than Ministers pretend, and that among those are large numbers of people who cannot afford to pay, including many who cannot afford to pay so much precisely because they are long-term or chronically sick. I have little doubt that the Minister of State will claim—as Ministers always claim—that there is no alternative, especially as next year they expect to raise £310 million from the charge. Almost a third of that could be found instead by abolishing the subsidy on private health insurance, which cost the Revenue £95 million last year. The Government could have held back the £100 million to £120 million that they spent on the legal costs, the logos, the uniforms and the PR that went with the structural changes in their so-called health reforms. There are a number of ways in which they could have economised on the £1.3 billion that is estimated as the overall total costs of the changes.
In other words, the Government are not forced to raise all the money in this way. The sheer scale on which the Government cheat the sick is demonstrated by one simple comparison. If, as the then Mrs. Thatcher indicated in 1979, they had increased prescription charges only in line with inflation, the charge today would be 53p instead of £5.25. In other words, 90 per cent. of the charge that we are debating is down to deliberate Government tax raising.
The Conservatives are the tax-raising party. In these weeks, we are seeing increases in income tax, increases in water charges, increases in prescription charges—every one of them in stark contradiction to the pledges, the promises and the programme that the Government put before the people of Britain. They are dishonest. They are deceitful. They should depart.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am astonished that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who has had a considerable time to reflect on these matters—as has her party over the past 16 years or so, or even longer because it was the Labour party that reintroduced prescription charges in 1968—comes to the House tonight and criticises what the Government are saying, and then simply promises a review. The truth of the

matter is that she understands, as I think the whole House does, that we have these debates every year, usually in relatively heated circumstances, but nobody from the Opposition Benches is ever able to suggest what should replace the prescription charges that the Government have put in place on a fair basis to increase the amount of money that is spent on health care in this country.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: We need a review first.

Mr. Malone: If it takes Labour Members 16 years to work out what the review and the decisions of that review should be, I hope that the whole House will note that the right hon. Lady had not a single substitute to put in place for the benefits that prescription charges provide for the population of this country.
Each year we have to make careful judgments about how the resources of the NHS should best be spent, so that we can continue to provide the highest standard of patient care. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently reminded the House, surveys of patients show high satisfaction rates with the NHS, and broadly we have a record that I believe that we can be proud of.

Mrs. Beckett: Those are characteristically accurate statistics from the Prime Minister. Of course, what he does not point out is that levels of satisfaction may be slightly higher now than they were two or three years ago, but they are substantially lower than they were 10 years ago, before these reforms.

Mr. Malone: If the right hon. Lady looks at the British social attitudes survey, she will see precisely how satisfaction has increased in recent years, and it is something for which the Government take a great deal of credit. I did not hear many Opposition voices saying that resources are not an important matter. To make the best use of available resources, successive Governments have taken the view that those who can afford it should pay for prescriptions, thereby making an important contribution.
I remind the right hon. Member for Derby, South that it was a Labour Government who in 1949 first took powers to introduce prescription charges. They introduced the first NHS charges in 1951, and a Labour Government abolished them in 1965, only to reintroduce them in 1968.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What do I tell my constituents who come to my surgery and say that they simply cannot afford to pay prescription charges?

Mr. Malone: What I shall say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will now deal with a point that I had intended to deal with later. It is that no pensioner, no child and no student up to the age of 18 pays prescription charges. There is a low-income scheme. Prescription charges are sensible and people who can afford to pay them make a contribution to British health care. What is the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party about replacing prescription charges? I shall be delighted to give way to him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I and all my hon. Friends think that we need a total review. That is absolutely right, and we shall have it and have sensible conclusions as a result.

Mr. Malone: The one certainty that I have noticed in my occasional appearances at the Dispatch Box is the


repeated Opposition cry of, Lets have a review. There are more reviews in the Opposition than ever appear in the Evening Standard theatre section.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Minister repeatedly mocks the idea of a review of prescription charges. Is he aware that the Select Committee on Health, which has a majority of Conservative Members, has called for a review? The Committees recommendation stated:
We therefore recommend that there should be a review of prescription charges and the current exemption categories.
In her response to that the Secretary of State for Health promised to examine the potential for change. The Ministers Department has agreed to a review. When will it take place?

Mr. Malone: There is a great deal of difference between what the hon. Gentleman says and what his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South said earlier. The right hon. Lady has absolutely no solution to filling the gap that would be left by the loss of the £310 million which contributes to greater patient care. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I cannot hear the Minister. I wish to hear him and I do not want sedentary interruptions from what sounds like overgrown schoolboys.

Mr. Malone: I shall remind the House of what the £310 million would pay for. It would pay for 75,000 hip replacements or 235,000 cataract operations. Where would the right hon. Member for Derby, South find that money if not from those who can afford a modest charge?
I shall now deal with the whole question of the cost of prescriptions. Increases in prescription charges have never been linked to inflation. The Government believe that it is reasonable to ask those who can afford to pay charges to do so. There is no firm evidence that charges deter people from getting the medication that they need.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Minister tell the House what percentage of prescription items cost less than £5?

Mr. Malone: The average cost of a prescription is approximately 55 per cent. of the real cost of the drugs that are provided. That is the important point. That statistic is used because people use a mixture of prescriptions. Over the course of a year, it is right to consider not specific items, but the average cost because that is what the taxpayer is supplementing. It is as clear as it ever has been that prescription charges are good value for money when the cost is averaged out. It is reasonable to ask people who can afford to pay to do so.
As I said to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) the charge is related not to a particular item but to an average. That is an extremely important point to bear in mind. I am aware of the fact that a number of items cost less than the prescription charge. That is and always has been the case. That was the position when charges were reintroduced by the Labour party in 1968.
The charge is a flat rate. To have something akin to banded charges, or charges directly related to the cost of individual items, would be costly to operate and would not in the least be cost-effective. There are occasions when people are able to buy a prescription item over the counter

at a cheaper price. They are free to do so. Many people do not know what sort of medication they need until they see the doctor, so it is not surprising that that happens.
Purchase of over-the-counter medicines for the minor ailments which form the bulk of illness is in line with the strategy in The Health of the Nation. People should take more responsibility for their health, in consultation with their general practitioners and pharmacists. Other items need to be prescribed.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Why will not the Government allow general practitioners to write private prescriptions for items that cost less than £5.25?

Mr. Malone: GPs may do that. Nothing prevents them from issuing private prescriptions. Undoubtedly, they may wish to make a charge on that, or, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, the pharmacist may charge a fee when the drug is dispensed. There is no question about that. There is no reason why that arrangement cannot be entered into.
I turn to exemption and remission arrangements. It is vital that hon. Members recognise what those are. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has often said to the House, we have the most generous exemption arrangements in Europe. More than 80 per cent. of prescription items are dispensed free, compared with 60 per cent. when the Government came to power in 1979. Only 42 per cent. were dispensed free in 1968 when the Labour party were in government and reintroduced charges.
It is important to remind the House about the arrangements. No child, pregnant woman or pensioner has to pay for their prescriptions. People on low incomes, such as income support and family credit, also receive free prescriptions, as do those entitled to full help under the national health service low income scheme. From 1 April, people receiving disability working allowance, who had capital of £8,000 or less when they made their claim, will receive free prescriptions. We are protecting people who are most vulnerable. People with certain chronic medical conditions who need regular or expensive medication also get their prescriptions free, and it is our intention to maintain that position.
We will not reduce an exempt list that has endured since it was first introduced in 1968 by Labour. I know that no change has been made in recent years, but the Government do not intend to extend the list because to do so would benefit only those whose income was above the level of qualifying for help on low income grounds, and an extended list would have to be agreed with the medical profession, which made it clear in 1968 that it would agree only to readily identifiable conditions needing lifelong medication. Nothing has occurred to change that up to now.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend the Minister is delivering a speech that needs to be heeded by all parties. He is presenting some relevant facts and statistics, but is he aware that some Conservative Members believe that a number of lifelong illnesses such as cystic fibrosis merit free prescriptions and being included in the exempt list of illnesses that require considerable medication? In the light of recent experiences and some of the views that have been expressed, would the Government perhaps consider exempting such diseases?

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friends point highlights the dilemma that faced those who had to reach this conclusion


in 1968. An agreement that would endure was needed then. It is difficult to include other categories of diseases in the exempt list for the simple reason that it is difficult to get a consensus in the medical profession about the very definitions of the sort of illnesses alluded to by my hon. Friend. The questions that were examined in great depth in 1968 with the British Medical Association resulted in an important list of exemptions that we shall not revise or revisit.

Mr. Eric Illsley: That was 30 years ago.

Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman says that it was 30 years ago, but a number of the diseases and problems to which many hon. Members refer were well known in those days. The medical profession at the time considered that they did not fall into the category that required exemption. That is a consensus that the Government do not intend to disturb.

Mr. John Greenway: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying. The shallowness and hollowness of the Labour party's call for a review is clear in that the party has not a word to say about what it would do. What most annoys my constituents and, I dare say, many of my hon. Friends constituents, is that some people have to pay an increasing amount but many pay nothing at all. There may not be a review just yet, but will my hon. Friend consider the important problem of the waste of medicines? People who do not pay for them are not being encouraged to use them sensibly. What most annoys those who face the higher charge is that many people pay nothing.

Mr. Malone: I shall respond directly to my hon. Friends point about the proper use and waste of medicines. We are moving towards original pack dispensing with a more educational form of drug use, which is extremely important. Yes, as my hon. Friend suggested, it is important that when drugs are prescribed and dispensed they are used properly. Moves are being made in the right direction. It is widely recognised that the effectiveness of therapy is often connected with the proper use of drugs over time.
There are many other ways in which fairness is brought to bear in considering prescription charges. For example, prepayment certificates can be of enormous benefit to those who require therapy over time. I am delighted to say that those certificates are available on a basis which allows tremendous and quite dramatic savings to people who require regular prescriptions. On average, those who have a prepayment certificate can save over the period that the certificate is valid some £100 or so if they are on an average dose of drugs.
We have this debate on a regular basis. If the Opposition were providing an alternative to what we do—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are.

Mr. Malone: Well, they are offering a review yet again. To the people in Britain who benefit from the additional cash that comes into the health service on a direct basis and receive the additional benefits of all that because of our procedures, the response of the Labour party is hollow. It protests much, but it knows little about

what to do. It has no alternative to what is being put forward. It promises a review after having looked at this problem for 16 years. It is a hollow promise.
We have fair arrangements which are firmly in place to ensure that those who can afford to contribute towards the cost of drugs that they receive do so and thereby provide benefits for patient care elsewhere in the health service. It is a proper policy. It is the right policy and the House will recognise tonight that the Labour party has no policy.

Mr. Alex Carlile: We have heard the word review bandied about a lot tonight in what I suppose may be regarded as the late-night revue on prescription charges. On one hand, we were reminded that the Secretary of State has said that she will keep prescription charges under review. On the other, we have heard that the Labour party is going to have a review of the whole system of prescription charges.
The Government have raised prescription charges way beyond inflation on the basis of the excuse that the charges have never had anything to do with inflation. That is arguing from a position of least advantage against the least advantaged, and the Minister knows it very well.
The Labour party says that it does not yet know what it will do about prescription charges. It would have been helpful—I agree with the Minister to this extent—if the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) had been able to tell us, for example, that she thought that prescription charges should not be raised. It would have been helpful if, for example, she had said what I believe to be the case—it has been my party's policy for a considerable time—that taxes on tobacco could be higher.
If one applied a hypothecated system of taxation to the national health service, the money that could be raised by increasing tobacco taxes could be applied to keeping prescription charges down to a reasonable level, not more than they are now. The many elderly people who now have to pay for eye tests could be spared. Many who are reaching the stage at which they have to change their spectacles frequently could be excused from paying for eye tests.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: No I shall not.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Come on.

Mr. Carlile: I shall give way—possibly—in a moment. I do not want to speak for a long time. In reality, the Government have converted prescription charges into a health tax. Prescription charges were never concealed—

Sir Norman Fowler: The Liberals would not lower charges.

Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman is interrupting from a sedentary position rather more energetically than we are used to from him. A late night away from the family I see. He and the Minister know very well that prescription charges were not introduced as a tax. They were introduced as a way in which to obtain a small contribution to offset the cost of the national health service.
It is very important that the Government should now be honest about the whole basis on which prescription charges are levied. Is the Minister saying that the charges are intended to offset the cost of prescriptions, or that they are a way of raising money for the Government coffers—that they represent simply a general contribution to the Governments tax collection system?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me by how much he thinks that the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes should rise?

Mr. Carlile: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my party has said that the tax on a packet of cigarettes should rise by at least double the rate of inflation each year.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why?

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position.

Mr. Winterton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: No, I heard what the hon. Gentleman asked. The answer to his question is: because smoking is extremely unhealthy and costs the national health service an immense sum, and because those who, possibly like the hon. Gentleman, enjoy their pipe or cigar—perhaps he enjoys a King Edward cigar—would be prepared to pay the extra money rather than give up.

Mr. Winterton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: No I shall not, because this is a short debate and we should concentrate on prescription charges.
The Minister should tell the House the basis upon which the Government levy prescription charges. Are they a tax or merely a modest subvention?

Mr. Malone: rose—

Mr. Carlile: I shall give way to the Minister if he will answer the question.

Mr. Malone: A prescription charge is a modest subvention; it is certainly not a tax. The charges represent a very small proportion of the health service budget, and are levied on those who can afford to pay. They are a contribution to health care, in addition to the record sums that the Government are already spending on the health service.

Mr. Carlile: The Minister has deliberately failed to answer the specific question. However, he has made it clear that in his view the charges are a tax on health, not a subvention on prescriptions. They represent a way of trying to get many people who cannot afford to do so to pay an extra impost to line the Governments coffers so that they can cut taxes at a later stage.
The Minister knows that his claim to rely on opinion polls and reviews of public attitudes towards the health service is not based on a single question about public satisfaction or otherwise with prescription charges. I challenge the Government to ask the public whether they approve of a prescription charge of £5.25. Of course they would not dare to ask that question, because they know what the answer would be.
The Government spend a lot of time complaining about scroungers. Yet, incomprehensibly, this tax is aimed at the very people whom the Government believe might, in a mad moment, vote for them. It is a tax on taxpayers. We know that many people are exempt from prescription charges, but how do the Government justify to the parents of the children who are exempt, the children of the pensioners who are exempt, and the carers who pay their taxes, a prescription charge increase at three times the rate of inflation?
How do the Government justify to doctors and pharmacists the fact that they must act as tax collectors for the Government? That is what happens with prescription charges. How do the Government justify their ignorance, and especially the Ministers ignorance, of what happens in doctors surgeries? Does he really believe that if ones general practitioner says, If I could give you a private prescription you could have the drug for £3 not £5, he or she is entitled to write a private prescription? That is not what GPs think that they are entitled to do. If the Minister approves of the practice he should say so tonight, because many GPs believe that they can not do that. Indeed, I was so advised today by those who represent the doctors. It is an important point, and I challenge the Minister to tell us whether that is the case. I am willing to give way to the Minister, as it is a simple question. Can GPs give their patients an NHS prescription for part of the drugs which they are prescribing and, on the same occasion—

Mr. Malone: indicated dissent.

Mr. Carlile: The Minister is now changing his mind and revealing his true ignorance. Earlier, he was suggesting that that was the case. Now, I understand him to be saying that the Government refuse to allow doctors to enable their patients to save money by giving private prescriptions on individual items costing less than £5.25. If that is the situation, why will the Minister not change that regulation and allow doctors to serve their patients with the best health care and also to assist in their economic interests when prescribing drugs?

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The position is that the British Medical Association wants the word shall in the GP contract to be changed to the word may to give GPs some discretion. In other words, it wants the Minister to review the situation.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I received the same briefing from the BMA, which made the situation clear. The Minister should have known that, and should not have tried to cloud the issue when he intervened. He has been a Minister for long enough, and as such he has been energetic enough, to know the answer to a simple question such as that by now. It is simply a fraud on the public. The Government are using as the innocent tools of their fraud the hard-working GPs and pharmacists who are hard-pressed seeing patients every day.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was under the impression that extremely skilled pharmacists can advise patients to have something that is not on their prescriptions if they think that it would help patients.

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Lady is right—pharmacists do that all the time—but she is missing the point. There are many drugs which pharmacists cannot sell across the counter, and that raises my next point. Surely the time has come when we must have a close look at the system which


operates in France, where it is possible to buy far more drugs across the counter. There is no evidence that health in France has been significantly damaged by that. For example, why should not some antibiotics be available across the counter? That is one example of the many drugs which might fall into that category.
These new regulations impose a tax on the public.

Mr. Malone: rose—

Mr. Carlile: If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall of course allow him to do so. But will he now tell the House whether he is prepared to review the regulations so that GPs may give private prescriptions for drugs costing less than £5.25 at the same time as prescribing drugs which cost more than £5.25?

Mr. Malone: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that GPs may well give such a prescription for a drug, but somebody who goes to have that drug dispensed may find that there is a charge for doing so. There is a balance in every case, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows.
The point of my intervention is that the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that prescription charges are a tax. I put to him the question that I put to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who failed to address it. I have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech with care. How would his party replace that £310 million? Would he get rid of prescription charges? What pledges will he give to the House tonight on the subject?

Mr. Carlile: The Minister should have been listening earlier. Did he not see his hon. Friend, the smoker from Macclesfield, getting excited about the Liberal Democrats policy on the issue?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is telling the House an untruth. I do not smoke and I never have smoked. I was telling the House that the tobacco tax brings the Exchequer about £9 billion a year and that the cost to the health service is about £1 billion a year. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman apologise for his allegation?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point of information.

Mr. Carlile: I shall certainly withdraw. I must say that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) misled me by his enthusiasm into the belief that he must occasionally have a quiet weed somewhere near Black Rods car park.
The Minister has intervened three or four times but has failed to answer a basic question. Why do the Government allow patients to be ripped off by having to pay more for the cost of drugs because they have an NHS prescription? That is not fair and the regulations are not fair. The Government have an unfair attitude. They know that the regulations are hitting some extremely poor families.

Mr. John Marshall: On these occasions we hear ritualistic speeches. None was more ritualistic than the praise of France by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He told us that

France was wonderful but chose not to tell the House that in France, unlike in the United Kingdom, not all pensioners are exempt from prescription charges. He might have told the House that in France pensioners have to pay boarding charges when they go into hospital. That is the society that the hon. and learned Gentleman was praising.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be dangerous to adopt the policy proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and dispense antibiotics over the counter? Chemists do not have the medical records of their customers and they should not dispense antibiotics. Their customers would build up an immunity to antibiotics, and they would then be of no use to them.

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right. If someone does not have access to the medical records of the patient, it would be wrong of him or her to prescribe antibiotics across the counter.
On these occasions we hear a great deal of synthetic indignation from the Labour party. The sincerity of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) can be judged from the fact that last year she was an even more prominent member of the Labour party. Did she decide to table a prayer against an increase of 11.8 per cent. in prescription charges? That was a slightly higher increase in percentage terms than this years.
The right hon. Lady did not table such a prayer. Why is she so angry this year when she was so silent last year? Is she trying to hide the fact that she has no policy on health? The right hon. Lady is no longer in her place. I do not know where she is. Perhaps she has gone to read The Economist of last Friday, which contained an article headed Labours health policy: Improvising. It is suggested that the Labour party lacks a coherent strategy on health. It added that the Labour shadow health spokesmen were like a group of frightened rabbits.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to a frightened bunny rabbit?

Mr. Marshall: Yes.

Mr. Brown: That is very good of him.
I enjoy The Economist. It is a good magazine until it writes about something of which I have knowledge.

Mr. Marshall: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was the member of the Opposition Front-Bench team who is reputed to have said, If we are ahead without a policy, why do we need one?
We have heard this evening a great pledge by the Labour party that, if it wins the election, it will have a thoroughgoing review. So at the next election we shall hear the slogan, Vote Labour for more Royal Commissions. Vote Labour for more reviews.
On one occasion, the Labour party was accused of offering the British people a menu without prices. On this occasion, it will be a menu without products and without prices, and both will be filled in after the election. What a load of stuff and nonsense.

Mr. Bayley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that VAT on fuel was rather like a menu without prices or items on it?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What has that got to do with this?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many seated comments, and very few of them seem to have any value whatever.

Mr. Marshall: That did seem to be one of the less relevant comments that we have heard this evening.
Let us consider the history of prescription charges. Some Members in the House remember the 1964 general election campaign, during which the Labour party said that it would abolish prescription charges. It did, but it did not promise at that election that it would reintroduce them at a higher level than it had inherited, so that, by the time of the 1970 general election, prescription charges were two and sixpence per item instead of the two bob per form that prevailed in 1964. By the end of the first Wilson Government, prescription charges were greater than when he came into office in 1964.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South fought the 1974 general election. She should read the 1974 Labour general election manifesto. It said:
Revise and expand the NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE.
Promise No. 1: abolish prescription charges. What happened? Labour did not abolish prescription charges. Perhaps that is why, at the most recent general election, the Labour party did not even mention prescription charges. It did not say whether it would abolish them, reduce them or have a thoroughgoing review. In the document Health 2000 there was no mention of them either. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am extremely tired of these rather stupid sedentary interventions. I am making a special note of those who engage in them. The next time that they want to catch my eye to make a speech, they may find that I am rather blind.

Mr. Marshall: Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be very difficult to be blind to some hon. Members in the House, but I am sure that we wish you good luck in your attempts to do so.
We have to remember, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, that prescription charges cover no more than 10 per cent. of the total drugs budget. He reminded us that the revenue from prescription charges would pay for 75,000 hip replacement operations and that 80 per cent. of prescriptions are exempt. He might have told us, if he had been trying to make partisan points, that the level of exemptions for prescription charges in Britain is much more generous than that in other countries of the European Union. He might have said, for example—

Mr. Illsley: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he skipped from the 1974 general election to the 1992 general election. He said that in 1974, the Labour party committed itself to abolishing prescription charges. Will he tell us what the charges were in 1974, or indeed in 1979, when a Labour Government committed themselves to abolishing those charges? Was it not something of the order of 20p? If those charges had been increased at the rate of inflation, we would be talking now of abolishing a charge of 53p rather than £5.25.

Mr. Marshall: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that the rate of inflation in recent years has been very low—very much

lower than it was under the most recent Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman admits that the Labour party made a promise in 1974; he admits that it did not keep that promise.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: What did Mrs. Thatcher say in 1979?

Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Lady Baroness Thatcher said in 1979 that she would improve the quality of the health service, and that is what has happened. She promised that more people would be treated; more people are being treated. She promised that waiting lists would decrease; they are decreasing. We kept our promises, and the money from prescription charges has helped to improve the quality of service given to the people of the country. The Labour party should welcome that fact.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: The hon. Gentleman said that people are being treated much better by the national health service. A 70-year-old constituent of mine was recently taken to hospital at 3 am with a heart complaint. He was sent home alone in a taxi at 6 am and taken back to hospital at 8 am where he died at 10 am. That is the kind of service that has been provided since the trusts have taken over. It is a greyhound service and we could fill Hampden park in Scotland with the people who have been sent home and have then returned to hospital.

Mr. Marshall: My sister worked for the NHS in Scotland for many years, and the case to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) refers is not typical of the NHS in Scotland or England. It is an insult to the devoted people who work for the NHS to point out the mistakes that occur when the majority of those who are treated by the NHS welcome the treatment that they receive.
I conducted a survey in my constituency in which we asked the questions: have you recently been treated by the NHS and, if so, were you satisfied with that treatment? Those who had received treatment, almost to a man and to a woman, said that they were satisfied with it.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He referred to the situation in Scotland. Does he know that the Royal Alexander trust hospital recently charged a 12-year-old American who was suffering from a sore stomach £800 for a 36-hour visit to that hospital? Yet the private hospital up the road would have charged £237. Is that not a case of privatisation through the back door? In the end, the people will suffer. Prescription prices are rising so high that, at the end of the day, people will have to treat themselves, as they will not be able to get into trust hospitals.

Mr. Marshall: I think that our remarks are ranging far wider than the scope of the debate. The hon. Gentleman referred to an American who was treated in a Scottish hospital. The charges that that parent paid to the hospital are a fraction of what he would have paid if his child had fallen ill in the United States of America.
Labour Members should tell us—they will not do so in this debate or, I suspect, in any other debates before the election—whether they intend to increase spending on the national health service. If they intend to abolish or restrict prescription charges, how would they pay for the net


impact of that loss of income? Would not the Labour partys vendetta against private medicine put a great strain upon the health service?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now ranging rather wider than the subject matter of the debate tonight. His remarks must relate to prescription charges.

Mr. Marshall: What impact would the Labour party's policy—which I understand that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) unveiled to a surprised audience in the City recently—of imposing value added tax on private health care have upon the health service, the cost of drugs and therefore the cost of prescriptions? That would clearly restrict the number of people who use private health care and it would force more people into the prescription net.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: That is not our policy, and we could not pursue it, even if some Labour Members wanted to, as the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) knows very well.

Mr. Marshall: It seems that, when the frightened rabbits go to the City and find that a thoroughgoing review is not enough, they make up policy on the hoof and they get it wrong. It is no wonder that Labour Members are like frightened rabbits.
Finally, we would like to know whether a national minimum wage would do anything other than hurt the health service because many of those who work for it—

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) tries my patience. He must return to the subject of prescription charges or sit down.

Mr. Marshall: I will return briefly to the subject of prescription charges to say that they provide £310 million of income for the national health service. They allow the provision of extra services and the exemptions in this country are more generous than in any other European Union country.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: It is a shame that the pharmaceutical industry has not yet developed a pill for bunkum and hogwash because it would have been in order this evening, given the myths peddled by Conservative Members. Both the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the Minister came out with the myth that the most generous prescription scheme in Europe is ours in the United Kingdom.
When the Select Committee on Health was taking evidence on the NHS drugs budget we were told at paragraph 882 of the report:
Holland does not have a prescription charge.
Who was the source of that subversive nugget of information? It was none other than the then Minister for Health.
In an intervention earlier, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asked the Minister why a GP cannot prescribe privately items which cost less than £5.25, the cost of a prescription, and the Minister replied that a GP can do that.
In paragraph 216 of our report we made the following recommendation to the Government:
We recommend that the Government introduce a system whereby the pharmacist may dispense an item privately if the cost of the product prescribed is less than the NHS prescription charge.
The Government response was:
The Government notes the Committees views and will examine the potential for change..
They are still examining the potential for change and they have not yet pronounced. It is part of a review that the Government are currently conducting.
The Minister said that there was no evidence whatever that high prescription charges deter people from getting the drugs that they need and which are prescribed by doctors. I urge the Minister to look at the British Medical Journal of 2 October 1993, which reports that 14 per cent. of prescriptions are not dispensed. They are given to patients and the patients do not cash them in. Surely that is evidence that, having been given a prescription by their doctor, patients are deterred from taking it to a pharmacy and getting it dispensed. The Minister should answer those questions.

Mr. Malone: The relevant fact is whether the hon. Gentleman can say how many of that 14 per cent. were exempt and how many were due to incur charges. If he cannot do that, he is making a totally irrelevant point.

Mr. Bayley: It is not a totally irrelevant point; it is a point which we put to many people who gave evidence to the Select Committee.
I refer to the evidence that we received from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Its president, Mr. Nicholas Wood, said:
Sometimes patients do say, I have not got enough money with me. There are three items on the prescription. Which one shall I take? It is very unfortunate and it puts a pharmacist into a difficult position.
There is evidence from the professionals that people are unable to get the drugs that they need because of the charge. It is not good enough for the Government blindly to dismiss it and to say, It does not matter. We shall carry on putting up the charge, not just by the rate of inflation, but by three times the rate of inflation. There is evidence that patients are not getting the treatment prescribed to them by their doctors and the Government should act on that evidence.

Mr. Illsley: Has the Select Committee come across any reason why anyone should not cash in a prescription, other than the threat of the cost?

Mr. Bayley: Intuition suggests that people who have to pay are less likely to cash in their prescriptions, but there is evidence from the British Medical Journal and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and there was the evidence to the Committee from the British Medical Association. It is extraordinary that when the evidence is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State in our report, the Government neither respond to the evidence nor do they tell the House that they are investigating it.
The Minister won a few laughs from his side by deriding Labours policy of conducting a thorough review of prescription charges, but in their response to the Select Committee report the Government said that they were conducting a review. Who is undertaking that review, and when will the report be produced? If the Minister cannot


tell us the answer, I imagine that the Select Committee will want to know why the response to its report was made in such terms. There is a contradiction between what the Minister has told the House today and what the Secretary of State told the Committee in response to our report.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked the Minister directly what proportion of prescriptions cost less than £5.25. He could not give a figure. Instead, he gave an answer to a question that had not been asked. The Select Committees evidence revealed, however, that 52 per cent. of items prescribed—the majority—cost less than the old, lower prescription charge, and the current estimate is in excess of 60 per cent.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: In a letter that I received from the Minister today, he estimates that
over 50 per cent. of prescription items will have a total cost to the NHS of more than … £5.25
It follows that just under 50 per cent. will cost less than £5.25.

Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing me up to date. That is a substantial number.
The Select Committee—which, like all Select Committees, has a Conservative majority—said in its report:
We consider it unreasonable that any patient should have to pay the full cost of prescription charges in respect of items the actual cost of which is less than the prescription charge.
That is what a Committee with a Conservative majority is saying to the Minister. How does he respond to his hon. Friends proposal?
Our Committee—whose majority reflects the composition of the House—has called for a review of prescription charges and exemptions. The Minister asks what such a review should cover. I will make some suggestions. Under the regulations, the cost of an annual prepayment certificate—an annual prescription season ticket—will rise to £74.80. Why do not the Government, in a review, consider a system whereby people could pay in instalments?
People who are, by definition, on low incomes—otherwise they would not want a prepayment form—but not quite on income support level which would make them exempt from charges will find it difficult to pay nearly £75. That is a benefit that the Government could have introduced if they were keen to ensure that patients received the medicines that their GPs prescribe. The Minister could also examine the low-income exemption categories: why is someone receiving unemployment benefit not exempt? My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South gave other examples.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that there are exemptions for some chronic diseases, such as epilepsy and diabetes, but not for others, such as chronic asthma, cystic fibrosis and hypertension. Those anomalies need to be resolved: given that certain people need regular prescriptions throughout their lives, it is plainly wrong for some to be exempted while others are not.

Mr. Malone: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman cleared that shopping list with his Front Bench. It is clear that Opposition Members can come out with shopping lists that their Front Bench refuses to acknowledge.

Mr. Bayley: The Minister would find it outrageous if, as a member of a Select Committee, I went running to my Front Bench to ask permission to include something in the Committees report. Every one of the suggestions on my list was the Committees suggestion, backed by every one of its Conservative members. They were the authors of that revolutionary shopping list—that drug-inspired psychedelic madness that the Minister derides.
Just for good measure, I will add a suggestion of my own which was not included in the Select Committees list—although it was suggested in evidence from the British Medical Association: someone who has a repeat prescription should not have to pay a repeat prescription charge. We heard earlier about a patient whose drugs for depression were prescribed at weekly intervals, for her own good. If the Government do nothing else, surely they can agree to drugs being prescribed in smaller amounts—which would be less wasteful and cost the NHS less money—without penalising the patient by imposing a further prescription charge since the charge is a tax.

Mr. Malone: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bayley: The Minister may shake his head at my use of the word tax, but when his predecessor gave evidence to the Select Committee he acknowledged that the prescription charge
is in the nature of a tax.
He explained:
Patients are not making a payment for the drug that they receive. They are making a contribution to the NHS.
The charge is a general contribution to the cost of the NHS. The Minister argued tonight that that is the purpose of the prescription charge. It is a Tory tax which has gone through the roof. If it had increased in line with inflation since 1979, the prescription charge would be 53p instead of a proposed £5.25. That is the mega inflation of a mega Tory tax.

Lady Olga Maitland: The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did patients no favours with her speech. She was terrorising them with her emotive language and dangerous, misleading and scaremongering statements. A patient at home listening to the debate could only be deeply alarmed.
The proposed 50p increase in prescription charges is equivalent to two first-class stamps, two sliced loaves or not even a pint of beer. We must keep a sense of proportion. Every person in the land knows that health is a priority in their family budget. If charges are as burdensome as the right hon. Member for Derby, South and her supporters claim, why is not my surgery packed with complaining patients? Instead, people tell me about the excellent NHS treatment they have received. They tell me how quickly they received treatment, and how quickly they recovered, returned home and got back to work and to help their families.
That is the good news from the national health service. Labour chokes on admitting that we do have good news. The good news has come because we have managed to


eliminate waste; we have packaged our resources to ensure that the maximum amount of money is available for patient care. The £310 million to be raised by the charge will go to the front-line patients, who will benefit by it.
Let us examine the sort of treatments that could be on offer as a result. There could be more than 75,000 hip replacements. Or there could be more than 50,000 coronary artery bypass operations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Lady is straying rather far from prescription charges.

Lady Olga Maitland: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!] I am saying that prescription charges—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair cannot hear what the hon. Lady is saying.

Lady Olga Maitland: I am saying that the money raised by the prescription charges will pay for all this treatment—and for 200,000 cataract removals besides. Surely any patient queuing up for these treatments would be delighted to get them. How can the Labour party seek to deny them those treatments?
The Labour party talks about a review. What good is a review to my patients? None at all: it will not speed up treatment. More, I suspect that the review will just be another device to bring about delay and upheaval. In the end it will mean fewer resources for patients.
It might help patients to learn a bit of history, too. Charges are a long-standing feature of the NHS. I remind the Labour party that the Attlee Government, on coming to power, decided to introduce prescription charges. In 1949, Labour, not the Conservatives, made that decision. Mr. Attlee announced it himself, and the Opposition can read that in Hansard of 24 October 1949.
Finally the charges were introduced in 1952, but then, Labour had already introduced charges for dentures and spectacles in 1951. And charges for dental treatment were introduced in 1952. Labour abolished prescription charges in 1965, only to reintroduce them in 1968. That shows how much hypocritical cant we have heard from the Labour party today.
It would also benefit those outside this place to go over some comparisons with other countries in the European Union. In many other EU countries, charging for treatment is much more widespread. The fact is that we have the most generous health service of all. Spain and Britain are the only EU countries to exempt pensioners from prescription charges. In Germany, pensioners have to make a contribution from their pensions into a sickness fund. In France, pensioners are expected to pay towards hospital charges; and in Belgium, pensioners pay up to 25 per cent. of doctors consultation fees. Do the Opposition agree that pensioners in this country are infinitely better off?
In other countries, too, pensioners are expected to make a financial contribution. Many people in the Irish Republic have to pay charges for doctors consultations and in-patient stays. In Italy, there are daily charges for the first 10 days stay as a hospital in-patient, although

pensioners are exempt. In Luxembourg there are daily charges for hospital in-patient stays. There are charges for doctors consultations in Portugal.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: She is reading out a central office brief.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must quieten down.

Lady Olga Maitland: One thing that is for sure is that the Conservative party and the Conservative Government respect our responsibilities in caring for the sick, the frail and the weak. We give them our priorities. We spend more money on the health service than the Labour party has ever dreamt of. It is salutary to bear in mind the fact that we spend £100 million a day on our health service. That is good news. As far as I am concerned, patients health is safe in Conservative Governments hands. It would be wrecked and undermined by the Labour party.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I do not want to be accused by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) of suppressing good news. The good news that is before the House today is the Governments proposition that prescription charges should rise at three times the rate of inflation. We are debating the Labour party's prayer against that proposition—a prayer that I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support.
The Minister opened the debate by whingeing about its timing. The timing of our prayer is directly consequent on the timing of his announcement. Is the Minister proud of what he is doing? Indeed, are Conservative health Ministers ever proud of increasing prescription charges? The evidence seems to suggest that they are not. These announcements have been repeatedly sneaked out. The House will recall that the latest increase was announced on a Wednesday. On the Monday, there was a debate on health care, in which it could have been announced. On the Tuesday, there was a debate on health care, in which it could have been announced. But no, it was a written answer, put out proudly in the name of the Secretary of State—no, slipped out in the name of the Minister of State, when there was an important announcement on Northern Ireland at the same time.
Indeed, only a week before, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) had asked the Minister of State whether he had any plans to increase prescription charges. The Minister replied:
Any announcement will be made at the appropriate time.— [Official Report, 14 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 637.]
So it is a bit rich of him to whinge about the timing now. It is par for the course. In 1994, the 50p increase came out in a written answer. In 1993, Madam Speaker had cause to rebuke the Secretary of State and the then Minister of State for abusing the pursuant device to sneak out a supplementary written reply. In 1992, the 35p increase was sneaked out during a high-profile dispute about employment figures.
In other words, the evidence is perfectly clear that the Government are not proud of what they are doing. If they are not proud of what they are doing, the Labour party is saying that it is not unreasonable for them to pause and think again, to review what they are doing. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has perfectly


correctly pointed out, prescription charges have risen from 20p in 1978 to £5.25 from April 1995—a tenfold increase in real terms. If the charges had increased in line with inflation, they would now stand at 53p. The issue that the House must consider is why prescription charges are getting these regular, steady increases, dramatically ahead of the rate of inflation. Why single out prescription charges?
A number of hon. Members have drawn comparisons. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam treated us to a shopping list. I know that several of my hon. Friends were rather hoping to persuade her to get our shopping in at those prices. She referred to equivalents. In 1978, the prescription charge was equivalent to the price of half a pint of beer. It is now equivalent to more than three pints of beer. In 1978, the charge was less than half the price of a packet of cigarettes. It is now around twice the price of a packet of cigarettes. Why is the relative price of prescription charges rising against the price of beer and cigarettes? What are the Government trying to say to the British people in the relative judgments that they are making on these matters?
The Minister said that there was no evidence to show that price affected consumption—in other words, affected the number of prescriptions. That is not so, as his own Department could tell him—if it dared, or if he asked it. The figures that his Department has issued show that the average number of charged prescription items per person in 1978 was 5.5 per year. In 1993 there were 2.2 items per year.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at prescription charges in a report published in 1990 and concluded that the entire fall in the increase in charge prescriptions could be accounted for by the increase in the real level of the prescription charge. That evidence runs counter to the Ministers statement. There was similar research by the York centre for health economics which estimates that the prescription charge increases have halved the demand for prescriptions among those who are not exempt. People are not taking the medicines that they should take because of price, although they are being advised by clinicians to take them. That must be wrong and it is false economy.
Precisely the same reasoning applies to national health service eye tests. There is a compelling case for free tests for those over the age of 65. That case was made in the debate and the principles that underpin it are the same as those that apply to prescription charges.
The Government claim that more people get free prescriptions under them than they did under Labour. But that is not because the Governments prescription exemptions are any more generous: they have not changed at all. It is because more people are now living in real poverty, more are unemployed and there are more elderly people, although I cannot blame the Government for that. Increased costs are deterring those who have to pay. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who screeches at me, that the Government should take demographic factors into account. That is why we say that these matters should be reviewed.
Some 50 per cent. of the population are liable to pay for their prescriptions and they are being excessively picked on. Those people are being picked on well beyond the degree to which the Government pick on any other item for which they charge.
The Minister will ask what Labour should do. It is perfectly clear that we shall vote against this impost, and we shall do so now.

Mr. Malone: If our strategy had been to try to slip the increase out by sleight of hand at dead of night, doing it by way of a parliamentary question and my appearance on the Jimmy Young show to justify the Governments policy, which I was pleased to do, and having a debate about these matters after the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) prayed against the regulations, it would have failed.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has come up with no policy at all. He suggests a review and that is it.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [24 March].

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 281.

Division No. 121]
[11.57 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Jean


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cox, Tom


Ainger, Nick
Cummings, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Alton, David
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Ian


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Bayley, Hugh
Denham, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Donohoe, Brian H


Bennett, Andrew F
Dowd, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Berry, Roger
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Betts, Clive
Eagle, Ms Angela


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Eastham, Ken


Blunkett, David
Enright, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fatchett, Derek


Burden, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Byers, Stephen
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galloway, George


Cann, Jamie
Gapes, Mike


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Gerrard, Neil


Chidgey, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Church, Judith
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clelland, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Coffey, Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grocott, Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Gunnell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hain, Peter






Hall, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanson, David
Morley, Elliot


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Estate (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug
Mowlam, Marjorie


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Hodge, Margaret
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoey, Kate
O'Brien, Mike (N Wkshire)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
Olner, Bill


Hood, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Purchase, Ken


Hutton, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Rendel, David


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooker, Jeff


Jowell, Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Alan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ruddock, Joan


Khabra, Piara S
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkwood, Archy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Short, Clare


Lewis, Terry
Simpson, Alan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spellar, John


McAllion, John
Stevenson, George


McAvoy, Thomas
Stott, Roger


McCartney, Ian
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Macdonald, Calum
Straw, Jack


McFall, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Timms, Stephen


McLeish, Henry
Tipping, Paddy


McMaster, Gordon
Touhig, Don


McNamara, Kevin
Turner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Tyler, Paul


McWilliam, John
Vaz, Keith


Madden, Max
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Maddock, Diana
Wallace, James


Mahon, Alice
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mandelson, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Marek, Dr John
Wicks, Malcolm


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swn W)


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Maxton, John
Wilson, Brian


Meacher, Michael
Wise, Audrey


Meale, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Michael, Alun
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Milburn, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Miller, Andrew
Mr. Joe Benton and


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Eric Clarke.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Faber, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fabricant, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkins, Robert
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkinson, David (Bourmouth E)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bates, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Booth, Hartley
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gorst, Sir John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bright, Sir Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)






Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Madel, Sir David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Sykes, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend John (Bridlington)


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Ward, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Pickles, Eric
Wells, Bowen


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Powell, William (Corby)
Whitney, Ray


Rathbone, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Richards, Rod
Wilkinson, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wolfson, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

George Beattie

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Jimmy Hood: The subject of this Adjournment debate is the George Beanie case. I wish to draw the attention of the House, and especially that of the Minister, to the worrying history of the police force in my constituency, which was involved in the investigation of the murder of Margaret McLaughlan and the wrongful conviction of my constituent, George Beattie, in July 1973.
First, let me tell the House of the conspiracy that took place on the day that the girls body was found—a conspiracy which set the tone for the entire investigation that followed. The court and the jury were told a story which is at great variance with the facts as many now tell them.
The man who went to court and told the story of finding the body was a uniformed inspector from Lanark police. He still lives in Carluke today in retirement. He told the defence solicitor:
She appeared to be dead and must have been dragged down the path. I noted the time as 2.25 pm.
I repeat the time of 2.25 pm, so that hon. Members will not forget it. Inspector Harry Robson found the body at two minutes to 3 in the afternoon. He called in the CID, and the pathologists arrived at the scene at 6 o'clock in the evening and began their examination of the body. They had come from Glasgow—perhaps an hour away at the most.
When Inspector Robson went to the court at Beattie's trial, he was not so precise about the time of finding the body. Hon. Members may later come to some conclusion as to why the inspector did not tell the court an accurate time for finding the body. The inspector said that he had left the police office in Lanark at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, so it seems that his timing of finding the body at two minutes to 3 would confirm that. Why then am I now aware of some five police witnesses who have testified at one time or another that the body was found in the morning?
Last year, the woman police constable who was assigned to question the family of the dead girl, now former WPC Stewart, gave an interview to BBC television. When she was asked the time when the body was found, she replied:
I think I was in the house until about lunch time, twelve o'clock, half past twelve, something like that when the CID officers came in and then I was taken out to get on with other inquiries.
Another person interviewed by the BBC at that time was the man who found the body, Constable John Baker, now a retired policeman. He said that, after he had discovered the body, the procurator fiscal was quickly on the scene. What time had the procurator fiscal arrived?
Between ten and eleven o'clock,
said John Baker. The interviewer was astounded and said:
You're talking about the morning, then, not the evening.
It was true. John Baker had found the body at about 10.30 am.
Imagine that a girl had been murdered and that news had got out around the neighbourhood. Who of all the people in that neighbourhood would remember to the very minute when he or she heard the news? It would, of course, be the parents.
When the mother of Margaret McLaughlan was asked when she was told of her daughters murder, she said that it was half-past 11. That was not said off the cuff to a television reporter. It was not said while she was being questioned on the morning that her daughters body was discovered. It was not said in any informal manner, but under oath in the High Court in Glasgow, on the morning of Tuesday on 2 October at the trial of Beattie.
Let us get to grips with the situation. The court was deceived, the jury was deceived, the defence lawyers were misinformed. I believe that the prosecution counsel was misinformed. Why? I suspect that a policeman in Strathclyde police force made a ghastly error on that Saturday morning, and that everyone involved was told to cover it up. I believe that the police thought that the murderer might return to the scene of the crime, so they waited for him.
In the meantime, the pathologists were not called, and they could not examine the body at noon, as they might otherwise have done, so their estimates of the time of the girls death, which was very important at the trial, were ruined. The temperature rose very high that afternoon. It was the longest day of the year, and a sunny one.
Then, when some senior officer decided that the stupidity had gone far enough, all the officers entered into a conspiracy to cover it all up. How they ever imagined that they could get away with it is beyond belief. But they did—for 21 years. Any conspiracy within the police is unforgivable, but that one is especially so, because it helped to convict an innocent man.
The conspiracy also tells us much about the attitude of the police force that conducted the inquiry, and that will be important when we assess what later happened to George Beattie during the investigation. But before I deal with the events that led to the charge of murder against George Beattie, let me illustrate that attitude in the force and demonstrate its source, because it came from the very top.
The man in charge of the inquiry was Detective Chief Superintendent William Muncie. When he arrived at the scene of the crime on the Saturday, he was shown a knife sticking in the ground by the side of the path leading up to the glen, towards the railway—the general area where the girl had been attacked. He sent the knife off to the laboratory for testing, along with a soil sample that he had taken from around it.
The scientist at the laboratory wrote a letter to Mr. Muncie saying that neither the knife nor the soil sample had any trace of blood on it, but by the time the letter was received Mr. Muncie had already charged Beattie with murder, chiefly because, as he claimed, Beattie had told him where the knife had been, and had described its general shape.
Did Mr. Muncie doubt the validity of his case against Beattie when he learned that the knife and the soil sample had no trace of blood on them? Did he renew his efforts to find evidence of blood on the knife that Beattie had apparently named as the murder weapon? Not at all. He simply suppressed the document that destroyed his case against my constituent. He suppressed the best evidence.
The Lord Justice-General made much of the word suppression at my constituents appeal last November. Well he might, because it was a copy of that document that caused the Secretary of State to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal. But of course, the document that

Lord Hope had in front of him had not been suppressed; it was the original of the document that had been suppressed.
Show me a copy of the letter from the scientist to Mr. Muncie that has a letterhead on it. Show me the scientists signature at the bottom of it, and then I shall say that the document was not suppressed. Show me the evidence that Mr. Muncie even asked for a further test for blood. Show me when he asked for the blade to be taken from the hilt so that the dirt from the joint could be examined for traces of blood. Show me any such evidence, and I shall begin to believe that Mr. Muncie might have done otherwise than destroy the document that ruined his case against my constituent.
I invite the Minister to ask the scientist involved, Mr. Hamilton, how a copy of the letter came into the hands of the procurator fiscal and subsequently the Crown Office. Why did Mr. Hamilton deem it necessary to duplicate the evidence in that way—unless, of course, he thought it odd that the knife was never sent back to his laboratory for further testing after it became a production in evidence against George Beattie?
Now, having touched on two conspiracies perpetrated by the police in the case, I shall rehearse the major evidence against the police force that convicted my constituent. At Beatties trial, the police claimed that they had elicited admissions from him at Carluke police station, during the course of two interrogations. They claimed that he had told them details about the scene of the crime that only the murderer could have known.
There were three key points. The police said that Beattie knew where the body had been, where the large knife had been left stuck in the ground, and where the girls suitcase had been thrown. The police claimed that this was special knowledge. Beattie, they said, had revealed his guilt during two interrogations on the night of the Wednesday after the murder. He had then shown them the secret locations.
What the police forgot to tell anyone was that there was a third interrogation on the Wednesday night, during which Beattie was fed all that information. One may well surmise that there must have been an inevitable conspiracy in a force such as that to suppress the truth about the matter. The first interrogation in Carluke began at 8 pm, and the second began at 9.30 pm. Beattie was charged with the murder at around 1 am.
The interrogators were two police officers from Lanark CID, DC John Semple and Sergeant Dougie Mortimer. A sketch of the murder site was produced in court. Both officers were questioned closely about the rough plan during the trial, because it was claimed that Beattie had described where the attack on the girl took place and where the umbrella had been left after the attack.
If the two officers were telling the truth, and there is no reason to doubt their word, the sketch they produced was a simple plan of the glen that anyone in Carluke would have been able to draw. There is nothing incriminating in it at all. I emphasise that Beattie never touched the sketch; nor did any other officer, according to the police.
The official story is that, after Mortimer finished the second interrogation, Beattie was charged with the murder. He was then taken to the cells in Lanark. During the car journey there, said Mortimer, Beattie mentioned the knife for the first time, and said that he would show


the police where it had been left at the scene of the murder. Mortimer took Beattie down to the scene of the crime early the next morning, and Beattie was alleged to have shown him where the knife was stuck in the ground by a concrete post. He also showed the police where the girls body had been and where the suitcase had been thrown.
The demonstration of that special knowledge—particularly the location of the knife, only 20 yd from the body—left a deep impression on the jury at Beattie's trial. Unfortunately, the police never had to demonstrate in any way the circumstances surrounding any of the interviews that they conducted with Beattie during the inquiry, or the complete background to any of the admissions he made—or that they alleged he made—during the interviews.
If the procurator fiscal had had the duty to make such inquiries to further investigate any suspicious circumstances about the interviews, the case against Beattie would never have been presented to the jury at the trial. No one—particularly no one on the jury—looked at the rough plan. That was the major mistake that cost George Beattie the best years of his life. There were other marks on the plan, which neither of the police interrogators had mentioned. In particular, the three main points of special knowledge were clearly marked.
If the Minister cares to take another look at the rough sketch, he may see that for himself. I have a copy of the sketch for him tonight. The sketch clearly shows the location of the concrete post and the knife beside it. All that has carefully been drawn in, and there are dots showing the actual locations, which have been ringed as if someone had pointed them out. None of that information had been discussed during the two recorded interrogations.
The rough sketch is incontestable proof that there was a third, secret, interrogation. So it is not at all surprising that Beattie gave the police the special knowledge when he went to the scene of the crime the next morning. He had been given it during the secret third interrogation the night before. Beattie had even had a picture of it drawn for him.
The story gets worse, but unfortunately I am running out of time and must move to my conclusion. More evidence was suppressed in the case—best evidence, as it is termed. This was deliberately withheld from the prosecution, because of ethics, and was of course withheld from the defence, because the content of that documentary evidence could have severely damaged the police case.
There is a much longer, more comprehensive and more clearly documented version of what occurred when Beattie was questioned by the police. A retired police officer has retained his notebook over the past 21 years, even though he has been retired for several years. He was in attendance during the key interview that the police conducted with Beattie, the interview that caused Beattie to be charged.
His notes of the interview far outstripped in length the paltry 163 words of the sergeant who conducted the interview. His notes take up pages and pages of his notebook. It is and was clearly the best evidence available of the interview. Yet the procurator fiscal never saw the

notebook. The Crown Office never saw it, and nor did prosecuting counsel. Perhaps most importantly, Beattie's defence solicitor and counsel did not see it.
Best evidence was ignored by the police. The officer in question appeared at the trial. He was asked whether any record was kept of what Beattie said. He replied:
Sergeant Mortimer made notes, yes.
The Minister might care to look at that section of the trial transcript. It is on page 262, paragraph D.
At best, the officers answer was a half-truth. Why did he say, Sergeant Mortimer made notes? Why did he not say the whole truth, as he had sworn to do, which was, I made notes and the notebook is in my pocket at this moment; it is the best record of the interview that is available? Why should he ever have been instructed to hide his noteboook from the defence lawyers and the jury that day?
I can tell the House that the officer knew what Mortimer's evidence had been. He knew the story that was the police version of the interview with Beattie. There were salient alleged facts in that version that he could not corroborate from his notebook.
Another astonishing fact about the officers evidence is that he failed to hear a conversation that Mr. Muncie claimed to have had at the scene of the crime on the Thursday morning. It was a crucial conversation, which was read out to the court from notes with great solemnity. In that conversation, Beattie described the handle of the knife that was supposed to be the murder weapon. It had a kind of hook at the end of the handle. And that clinched the matter.
Why is it that the officer who was taking the most comprehensive notes of these events did not take a note of a crucial conversation? That is strange. He might have claimed, as his partner Sergeant Mortimer did in court, that he did not hear the conversation. Mortimer told the jury that he, Beattie, spoke with Mr. Muncie, but he did not know what he said.
Perhaps Mortimer could have wandered off and not heard Beattie's final comments—but not the officer whose notebook has recently come to light. He must have heard the conversation, if it ever took place. He must have been within a couple of feet of the conversation. He was handcuffed to Beattie throughout Beattie's visit to the scene of the crime. Yet he did not hear what was one of the most crucial conversations in the entire investigation. He made no note of some of the most important evidence supposed to have been given by George Beattie.
How can that be explained away? The long arm of the Lanarkshire law extends to the men involved even to this day, for the retired officer will not give up his notebook. I understand that he has even said that he has disposed of it. I ask the Minister to order an independent inquiry into the affair with such speed that the notebook in question can be obtained and secured in a safe place.
The Minister would no doubt like to see the details set out in the police officers notebook—the best evidence that I mentioned earlier. The notebook may be burned even now, so that my constituent will not gain freedom from conviction.
I have a copy of a verbatim minute of that notebook in my possession, which I shall hand to the Minister when I take my seat. It was taken during a two-hour interview by two investigative journalists with the former police officer concerned.
The Minister may well like to know what the officer in question has to say when confronted with the evidence that is so at variance with what he now knows from his own knowledge. I present the Minister also with a signed statement containing that information from Peter Hill, an investigative journalist and a television producer.
The Minister may well care to know the name, address and telephone number of the retired police officer who is currently obstructing my inquiry into these matters by refusing to give up his notebook. I decided to name that officer in the House tonight. I cannot allow him to hide from his public responsibility.
I discussed that person with the Minister early this afternoon, and I sought assurance from the Minister that, when I presented this evidence to the House tonight, he would immediately hold an investigation into the allegations made, and seek to obtain possession of that book and put it in safe keeping.
The officers name, address and telephone number are included in the documentation that I shall hand to the Minister when I take my seat, along with a signed statement and a copy of the sketch from the scene of the murder.
The Minister has assured me that he will investigate the matters that I have mentioned tonight, so on this occasion I have agreed with the Minister not to name that police officer, so as to allow the authorities the opportunity to go to that person and seek to obtain his evidence from him.
In the near future, I shall petition the Secretary of State for Scotland for another appeal for George Beattie.
Tonight, the BBC Scotland Front-line programme will run another programme on the case of George Beattie, including more evidence that proves that he is innocent. I hope that all Scotland will watch that programme tonight. I hope that the Minister will watch that programme tonight. I hope that the Secretary of State, Lord Fraser and Lord Hope watch that programme tonight.
George Beattie is innocent. In his words,
he is free on parole—but he still has the ball and chain around his ankle.
It is for the House to give him the justice that he deserves.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on his success in securing a further debate on the Adjournment about the case of George Beattie, and on his obvious commitment on behalf of his constituent.
The present position with regard to Mr. Beattie is that there is no petition before the Secretary of State, following the decision reached by the Court of Appeal on 2 December 1994. The court concluded then that no grounds had been put before it would show that there had been a miscarriage of justice at Mr. Beattie's trial.
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's worries about Mr. Beattie's case with great attention tonight. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to consider any further representations that may be submitted on Mr. Beattie's behalf.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned conspiracy on the part of the police. He mentioned the withholding of evidence in relation to the notebook, and he made certain statements in relation to Mr. Muncie. The appropriate procedure is for those matters to be laid out in a petition so that they can be properly considered, and the hon. Gentleman, as I understood it, said that that course would be adopted on behalf of Mr. Beattie.
I am sure that those who attended Mr. Beattie's appeal last November, or who subsequently read the detailed opinion delivered by the Court of Appeal, will be ready to acknowledge the careful and meticulous scrutiny that the Court of Appeal gave to his case in November and December 1994.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland refers a case to the Court of Appeal under section 263, the court is not restricted by the particular grounds that caused my right hon. Friend to request the review; it is the appellant who is responsible for identifying in his note of appeal all the grounds on which he claims that there was a miscarriage of justice at his trial.

Mr. Hood: The petition and the appeal will be pursued. Can the Minister confirm what I assumed he agreed with tonight, when I put forward the evidence concerning that former police officer who has in his possession a notebook that is relevant to the case—that he will take steps to try to get the authorities to obtain that notebook and put it in a safe place?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Clydesdale said that he will submit the documents, and I have assured him that the matter will be investigated as is deemed appropriate. We will obviously have to study those documents, and I will be grateful to receive the papers concerned at the conclusion of the debate.
Counsel for Mr. Beattie was pressed by the court to ensure that his note of appeal identified all the grounds on which he claimed that there had been a miscarriage of justice at the original trial. In consequence, the single ground on which Mr. Beattie's appeal originally rested was extended to four grounds of appeal. They focused on: an erroneous statement by the Court of Appeal in 1973 to the effect that Mr. Beattie had himself given evidence at his trial; the sufficiency of the evidence at that trial; the time of death of the victim; and the fact that the forensic scientists letter of 7 July 1973 had not been made available to the defence.
Significantly, however, none of the grounds lodged for last Novembers appeal made any suggestion whatsoever of police malpractice. In particular, it was not suggested that the special knowledge which Mr. Beattie had revealed by his statements to the police and his actions at the scene of the crime had been imparted to him by the police themselves; nor was it suggested at the trial or at the recent appeal hearing that the police evidence about what he said and did was in any respect incomplete or inaccurate. I shall look very closely at the information which the hon. Gentleman intends to submit tonight.
The Court of Appeal considered the submissions made on Mr. Beattie's behalf last November in the light of the evidence which had been led at his trial, but it concluded that the appeal had to be refused. The Court of Appeal indicated that it was satisfied that there had been sufficient evidence at the trial for a conviction.
The court was also satisfied that the evidence of the bloodstains on the tissues, when taken together with other evidence from which it could be inferred that Mr. Beattie had the tissues with him at the locus and had the opportunity to commit the murder, was sufficient to corroborate the inference of guilt which the jury were entitled to draw from what Mr. Beattie said to the police and pointed out to them at the locus.
The court was not satisfied that the evidence of testing of the deceased's blood on the MN system revealed by the letter of 11 July 1973 would have had a material part to play in the jury's decision on the question whether the bloodstains on the tissues could have come from the deceased, as there was no evidence as to what the result of testing the bloodstains on the tissues on the MN system would have been.
I should like to clarify a misunderstanding on a question of fact. In the last Adjournment debate held on Mr. Beattie's case, I referred to correspondence between the late Dame Judith Hart, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and the then Solicitor-General. I make it quite clear that the then Solicitor-General confirmed to Dame Judith that no blood was found near the scene of the crime belonging to a group to which neither Beattie's nor the victims belonged.
In a subsequent press article, my reference to that statement was quoted out of the context, and it was made to imply that blood of Mr. Beattie's grouping was found near the scene. It is important to clarify for the record that there was no forensic evidence available to indicate that blood of Mr. Beattie's grouping was found at or near the scene of the crime. There is no disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and me on that point, which I have sought to clarify tonight.
My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider any further petition which may now be submitted. I have noted the number of criticisms made of the police investigation of the case in the media. Allegations of police malpractice, if substantiated, would be a matter of grave concern to any civilised society. However, it is equally important for society to protect the reputation of its police officers, whether serving, retired or dead, against unfounded allegations.
We therefore stand ready to review the case further. Any evidence which may be submitted on Mr. Beattie's behalf—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.